Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

PEOPLE v. ROLANDO PINEDA Y MANALO

This case has been cited 7 times or more.

	GR No. 183830 2011-10-19	PEOPLE v. DELFIN CALISO BERSAMIN, J.
In every criminal prosecution, the identity of the offender, like the crime itself, must be established by proof beyond reasonable doubt. Indeed, the first duty of the Prosecution is not to prove the crime but to prove the identity of the criminal, for even if the commission of the crime can be established, there can be no conviction without proof of identity of the criminal beyond reasonable doubt.[19]
	GR No. 158362 2011-04-04	PEOPLE v. GILBERTO VILLARICO BERSAMIN, J.
The first duty of the prosecution is not to prove the crime but to prove the identity of the criminal, for, even if the commission of the crime can be established, there can be no conviction without proof of the identity of the criminal beyond reasonable doubt.[22] In that regard, an identification that does not preclude a reasonable possibility of mistake cannot be accorded any evidentiary force.[23] The intervention of any mistake or the appearance of any weakness in the identification simply means that the accused's constitutional right of presumption of innocence until the contrary is proved is not overcome, thereby warranting an acquittal,[24] even if doubt may cloud his innocence.[25] Indeed, the presumption of innocence constitutionally guaranteed to every individual is forever of primary importance, and every conviction for crime must rest on the strength of the evidence of the State, not on the weakness of the defense.[26]
	GR No. 176389 2010-12-14	ANTONIO LEJANO v. PEOPLE ABAD, J.
[122] People v. Pineda, G.R. No. 141644, May 27, 2004, 429 SCRA 478, 495, citing People v. Quima, No. L-74669, 14 April 1988, 159 SCRA 613 citing People v. Alto, 135 Phil. 136 (1968).
	GR No. 182555 2010-09-07	LENIDO LUMANOG v. PEOPLE VILLARAMA, JR., J.
Upon reaching the area at 8:45 a.m., they saw several onlookers around and near a black Honda Accord with Plate No. RNA-777 on a stop position in the middle lane of Katipunan Avenue facing south going to Libis. They found the victim's bloodied and bullet-riddled body partly slumped onto the pavement at the car's left door, which was open. The front windshield and sliding glass windows on the left and right side were shattered; a hole was seen on the glass window of the left rear door, apparently pierced by a bullet. Glass splinters were scattered inside the car and on the pavement at both sides of the car. On orders of Chief Insp. Villena, PO2 Daganta and PO1 Francisco assisted by a certain Cesar Espiritu, immediately brought the victim to the Quirino Memorial Hospital in Project 4, Quezon City. SPO2 Magundacan was instructed to stay behind to cordon the area for the start of the investigation while Chief Insp. Villena went to their station to get his camera.[5] After ten (10) minutes, Chief Insp. Villena returned and took pictures of the crime scene, and also of the victim at the hospital.[6] SPO2 Magundacan was able to pick up several spent shells and two (2) slugs, apparently fired from .45 and 9 mm. pistols.[7] A sketch was prepared by PO2 Daganta who also interviewed some of the witnesses present at the crime scene.[8] The spot report and list of recovered items (including a Philippine Military Academy gold ring on which was engraved the name "Rolando N. Abadilla") were later prepared by SPO2 Magundacan at the police station.[9]
	GR No. 170472 2009-07-03	PEOPLE v. JOJO MUSA Y SANTOS BRION, J.
In People v. Pineda,[31] we laid down the proper procedure on photographic identification: first, a series of photographs must be shown and not merely that of the suspect; and second, when a witness is shown a group of pictures, their arrangement and display should in no way suggest which one of the pictures pertains to the suspect.
	GR No. 176159 2008-09-11	PEOPLE v. LEE RODRIGO BRION, J.
We mention, too, that the review of a case opens the whole case for our consideration, including the questions not raised by the parties.[28] Our role in the justice system is not so much to penalize as to see that justice is done. Towards this end, ours is the obligation to explore all aspects of a case, including those that the parties have glossed over or have not fully explored.
	GR No. 172608 2007-02-06	PEOPLE v. BERNARD MAPALO CHICO-NAZARIO, J.
A Yes, sir.[56] Moreover, we do not find herein the presence of factors[57] that could cause the witness Garcia to misidentify the appellant. In People v. Limpangog,[58] this Court enumerated several other known causes of misidentification, viz:x x x Known causes of misidentification have been identified as follows: