This case has been cited 2 times or more.
|
2011-01-19 |
NACHURA, J. |
||||
| Direct evidence of the commission of the crime charged is not the only matrix wherefrom a court may draw its conclusions and findings of guilt. There are instances when, although a witness may not have actually witnessed the commission of a crime, he may still be able to positively identify a suspect or accused as the perpetrator of a crime as when, for instance, the latter is the person last seen with the victim immediately before and right after the commission of the crime. This is the type of positive identification, which forms part of circumstantial evidence. In the absence of direct evidence, the prosecution may resort to adducing circumstantial evidence to discharge its burden. Crimes are usually committed in secret and under condition where concealment is highly probable. If direct evidence is insisted upon under all circumstances, the guilt of vicious felons who committed heinous crimes in secret or in secluded places will be hard, if not well-nigh impossible, to prove.[42] | |||||
|
2007-02-06 |
TINGA, J. |
||||
| We affirm, however, the award of damages. Consequently, the court finds appellant liable to the heirs of Rolando F. Nicolas in the amount of P50,000.00 as actual damages for funeral expenses, P50,000.00 as moral damages and P50,000.00 as civil indemnity.[51] | |||||