Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

PEOPLE v. DEAN MARTIN Y SARVIDA

This case has been cited 4 times or more.

	GR No. 176061 2011-07-04	PEOPLE v. BINGKY CAMPOS DEL CASTILLO, J.
Conspiracy is said to exist where two or more persons come to an agreement concerning the commission of a felony and decide to commit it. [33] "Direct proof is not essential to prove conspiracy [for] it may be deduced [from] the acts of the accused before, during and after the commission of the crime charged, from which it may be indicated that there is a common purpose to commit the crime." [34]
	GR No. 172708 2010-05-05	PEOPLE v. JOSEPH AMPER Y REPASO DEL CASTILLO, J.
We likewise cannot sustain appellant's contention that his identification was marked by suggestiveness. Appellant claims that he was arrested after the incident based on the suggestion of the police officer and not on the identification made by "AAA". It must be stressed that what is crucial is for the witness to positively declare during trial that the persons charged were the malefactors.[34] In this case, "AAA" positively and categorically identified appellant during trial as her molester. She could not have been mistaken because she had a fairly good look at appellant's face even before the commission of the crime.[35] The place where she first saw the appellant was well-lighted.[36] Moreover, "AAA" never faltered in her identification of the appellant.
	GR No. 187049 2010-05-04	PEOPLE v. LITO MACAPANAS Y ECIJA VILLARAMA, JR., J.
While appellant was not placed in a police line-up for identification by AAA, the absence of such police line-up does not make AAA's identification of appellant as the one (1) who raped her, unreliable. There is no law or police regulation requiring a police line-up for proper identification in every case. Even if there was no police line-up, there could still be proper and reliable identification as long as such identification was not suggested or instigated to the witness by the police.[31] What is crucial is for the witness to positively declare during trial that the person charged was the malefactor.[32]
	GR No. 189279 2010-03-09	PEOPLE v. NELSON PALMA Y HANGAD NACHURA, J.
Neither can we sustain appellant's contention that his identification was marked by suggestiveness, because he was presented to AAA alone and not in a police lineup. As correctly pointed out by the CA, a police lineup is not required for the proper and fair identification of offenders. What is crucial is for the witness to positively declare during trial that the persons charged were the malefactors.[20]