Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

PEOPLE v. MELITA SINCO

This case has been cited 4 times or more.

	GR No. 177361 2010-02-01	ARMANDO VIDAR v. PEOPLE DEL CASTILLO, J.
In ascertaining whether an out-of-court identification is positive or derivative, the Court has adopted the totality of circumstances test wherein the following factors are taken into consideration: 1) the witness's opportunity to view the criminal at the time of the crime; 2) the witness's degree of attention at that time; 3) the accuracy of any prior description given by the witness; 4) the level of certainty demonstrated by the witness at the identification; 5) the length of time between the crime and the identification; and 6) the suggestiveness of the identification procedure.[14]
	GR NO. 157221 2007-03-30	PEOPLE v. CESAR GALVEZ AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J.
When a crime is committed, it is the duty of the prosecution to prove the identity of the perpetrator of the crime beyond reasonable doubt for there can be no conviction even if the commission of the crime is established.[62] Indeed, the State, aside from showing the existence of a crime, has the burden of correctly identifying the author of such crime.[63] Both facts must be proved by the State beyond reasonable doubt on the strength of its evidence and without solace from the weakness of the defense.[64]
	GR Nos. 140538-39 2004-06-14	PEOPLE v. GODOFREDO B. ADOR PUNO, J.
Both Diosdado III and Godofredo denied the charges hurled against them. But, while it is true that alibi and denial are the weakest of the defenses as they can easily be fabricated,[68] absent such clear and positive identification, the doctrine that the defense of denial cannot prevail over positive identification of the accused must yield to the constitutional presumption of innocence.[69] Hence, while denial is concededly fragile and unstable, the conviction of the accused cannot be based thereon.[70] The rule in criminal law is firmly entrenched that verdicts of conviction must be predicated on the strength of the evidence for the prosecution and not on the weakness of the evidence for the defense.[71]
	GR No. 139351 2004-02-23	PEOPLE v. WARLITO TOLENTINO Y LAQUIN QUISUMBING, J.
In determining whether an out-of-court identification is positive or derivative, we have adopted the totality of circumstances test wherein the following factors are taken into consideration: (1) the witness's opportunity to view the criminal at the time of the crime; (2) the witness's degree of attention at that time; (3) the accuracy of any prior description given by the witness; (4) the level of certainty demonstrated by the witness at the identification; (5) the length of time between the crime and the identification; and (6) the suggestiveness of the identification procedure.[59]