This case has been cited 5 times or more.
|
2010-04-07 |
VILLARAMA, JR., J. |
||||
| Furthermore, the reliability of Pabalan's memory should not be doubted by the mere fact that identification of the appellants at the police line-up happened several days after the incident. It is known that the most natural reaction of a witness to a crime is to strive to look at the appearance of the perpetrator and to observe the manner in which the offense is perpetrated. [16] Most often the face of the assailant and body movements thereof, create a lasting impression which cannot be easily erased from a witness's memory. [17] Experience dictates that precisely because of the unusual acts of violence committed right before their eyes, eyewitnesses can remember with a high degree of reliability the identity of criminals at any given time. [18] | |||||
|
2009-04-24 |
CORONA, J. |
||||
| In this case, we find no reason to overturn the conclusion arrived at by the trial court as affirmed by the CA. It held that AAA's testimony was credible as she delivered her testimony in a clear, direct and positive manner. Through his voice, she positively identified appellant as the man who sexually abused her. Identification of an accused by his voice has been accepted, particularly in cases where, as in this case, the victim has known the perpetrator for a long time.[13] | |||||
|
2007-10-26 |
NACHURA, J. |
||||
| During rape incidents, the offender and the victim are as close to each other as is physically possible. In truth, a man and a woman cannot be physically closer to each other than during a sexual act.[34] Moreover, per testimony of AAA, while appellant was performing the lustful act, he threatened to kill her. As such, she heard the voice of her assailant. Identification of an accused by his voice has also been accepted particularly in cases where, such as in this case, the witnesses have known the malefactor personally for so long and so intimately.[35] Considering that appellant and AAA lived together in one house, and the former repeatedly abused her, she is undoubtedly familiar not only with his physical features but also with his voice. Not surprisingly therefore, she readily and positively identified appellant in court during the trial as the man who raped her. | |||||
|
2007-05-11 |
QUISUMBING, J. |
||||
| As to Buban's contention that Ruel could not have seen the shooters because of poor lighting, we have previously held that illumination coming from a "gasera" is sufficient for purposes of identification of an assailant.[41] Likewise, even the split-second illumination by a flash of lightning could suffice to confirm the identification of the appellant.[42] | |||||
|
2006-02-13 |
PER CURIAM |
||||
| It is highly inconceivable that complainant would not recognize her own father, with whom she had been living for a long time. We have held that it is the most natural reaction for victims of criminal violence to strive to see the appearance of their assailant and observe the manner in which the crime was committed. Most often, the face and body movements of the assailants create a lasting impression which cannot be easily erased from their memory.[18] The impression becomes more profound where the malefactor is the victim's own father.[19] Also, Juvilie categorically testified that it was her father who raped her. It is unthinkable, if not completely preposterous, that a daughter would concoct a story of rape against her father, taking to mind the reverence and respect for elders that is too deeply ingrained in Filipino children.[20] It is well-settled that a categorical and positive identification of an accused, without any showing of ill-motive on the part of the eyewitness testifying on the matter, prevails over alibi and denial, which are negative and self-serving evidence undeserving of real weight in law unless substantiated by clear and convincing evidence.[21] | |||||