Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

PEOPLE v. ANGELITO BAGSIT Y BAGSIT

This case has been cited 5 times or more.

	GR No. 177741 2009-08-27	PEOPLE v. VS.WILLIE RIVERA CARPIO MORALES, J.
Buenaventura v. People,[9] citing People v. Bagsit,[10] teaches, however: x x x It is long settled that where the accused, by his voluntary submission to the jurisdiction of the court, as shown by the counsel-assisted plea he entered during the arraignment and his active participation in the trial thereafter, voluntarily waives his constitutional protection against illegal arrests and searches. We have consistently ruled that any objection concerning the issuance or service of a warrant or a procedure in the acquisition by the court of jurisdiction over the person of the accused must be made before he enters his plea, otherwise, the objection is deemed waived. (Citations omitted; underscoring supplied)
	GR No. 183567 2009-01-19	PEOPLE v. AVELINO DELA PEÑA NACHURA, J.
Q: Now, when you saw the accused shot your husband what did the accused do after that? A: He ran away, Your Honor.[34] The Court notes that the eyewitness and the assailant were no strangers to each other, and that the scene of the crime was sufficiently illuminated. Surely, it is not fanciful to stress that even under less favorable circumstances a familiar face would considerably reduce any error in identifying the assailant.[35] It has also been consistently ruled in prior cases that the illumination produced by a kerosene lamp is sufficient to allow identification of persons.[36]
	GR NO. 171578 2007-08-08	HERMINIO BUENAVENTURA Y RECTO v. PEOPLE CARPIO MORALES, J.
Appellant, nevertheless, assails the validity of his arrest and the search on his person and his house at the time of his arrest. Apropos is the following pronouncement in People v. Bagsit:[14]
	GR No. 138937 2004-01-20	PEOPLE v. ANTONIO ABES Y YAMBOT QUISUMBING, J.
Positive identification of the accused where categorical and consistent, and without any showing of ill motive on the part of the eyewitness testifying, should prevail over the alibi and denial of appellants whose testimonies are not substantiated by clear and convincing evidence. Such denial and alibi are negative and self-serving evidence undeserving of any weight in law.[62]