Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

PEOPLE v. LAMBERTINO PRIETO

This case has been cited 6 times or more.

	GR No. 182548 2008-09-30	PEOPLE v. CESARIO OSIANAS CHICO-NAZARIO, J.
Q And because of that you can definitely be sure that you know them? A Yes, sir.[18] This Court has held that once a person has gained familiarity with another, identification becomes quite an easy task.[19] This Court has also ruled that identification by the sound of a person's voice,[20] as well as the physical build of such person,[21] is a sufficient and acceptable means of identification, when it is established that the witness and the accused had known each other personally and closely for a number of years.
	GR No. 172869 2008-07-28	PEOPLE v. DONATO BULASAG Y ARELLANO QUISUMBING, J.
As this Court has ruled in earlier cases, identification by the sound of the voice[16] as well as familiarity with the physical features[17] of a person are sufficient and acceptable means of identification where it is established that the witness and the accused had known each other personally and closely for a number of years.
	GR No. 172608 2007-02-06	PEOPLE v. BERNARD MAPALO CHICO-NAZARIO, J.
The assessment of the credibility of witness and their testimony is a matter best undertaken by the trial court because of its unique opportunity to observe the witnesses firsthand; and to note their demeanor, conduct and attitude under examination. Its findings on such matters are binding and conclusive on appellate courts unless some facts or circumstances of weight and substance have been overlooked, misapprehended or misinterpreted.[66] Appellant's defense of alibi and denial cannot stand in the face of the positive identification of the accused. We have unfailingly held that alibi and denial being inherently weak cannot prevail over the positive identification of the accused as the perpetrator of the crime.[67] It is facile to fabricate and difficult to disprove, and is generally rejected.[68]
	GR NO. 145002 2006-01-24	PEOPLE v. PFC FLORO MALEJANA AZCUNA, J.
In contrast, appellant's alibi and denials have not been proven by positive, clear and satisfactory evidence. It bears stressing that alibi is the weakest of all defenses because it is facile to fabricate and difficult to disprove, and is generally rejected.[31] For alibi to prosper, it is not enough to prove that the defendant was somewhere else when the crime was committed, but he must likewise demonstrate that it was physically impossible for him to have been at the scene of the crime at the time.[32] In this case, appellant admits that on the night in question, he approached the victim and the latter allegedly attempted to strike him. In response thereto, appellant allegedly fired a warning shot in the air then left after reprimanding the group. However, this defense cannot prevail over the positive identification of appellant as the author of the crime by no less than three credible witnesses.[33]
	GR No. 141087 2004-03-31	PEOPLE v. ABRAHAM AGSALOG CARPIO MORALES, J.
The records show that the day after the stabbing of the victim or on October 6, 1997, Ulyses Soto (Soto),[8] Edwin[9] and Aquino[10] gave their respective sworn statements before the local police authorities on what they witnessed, the substance of which statements Soto and Edwin were later to echo at the witness stand.
	GR No. 147231 2004-02-18	PEOPLE v. RONNIE ABOLIDOR YNARES-SATIAGO, J.
In People v. Prieto,[14] we ruled that the illumination provided by kerosene lamp or wicklamps, and flashlights, moonlight or starlight may, in proper situations, be considered as sufficient illumination, making the attack on the credibility of witnesses solely on that ground unmeritorious.