This case has been cited 3 times or more.
|
2013-07-24 |
LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, J. |
||||
| Accused-appellant's attempt to render doubtful Mark's identification of him fails. Indeed, the law requires not simply an eyewitness account of the act of committing the crime but the positive identification of the accused as the perpetrator of the crime.[33] Here, Mark has positively pointed to accused-appellant as the perpetrator of the crime. The Court of Appeals correctly ruled that Mark's failure to identify accused-appellant in a police line-up on February 13, 2003 was of no moment. There is no law stating that a police line-up is essential to proper identification. What matters is that the positive identification of the accused as the perpetrator of the crime be made by the witness in open court.[34] Nevertheless, the records show that Mark identified accused-appellant as the robber-killer of the victim in a police line-up on February 18, 2003[35] and, more importantly, in open court in the course of Mark's testimony. | |||||
|
2004-01-20 |
QUISUMBING, J. |
||||
| PUBLIC PROSECUTOR: Q: The wound that you found at the back of the hand, which is at the back of the right hand, would you characterize this as [a] defense wound? A: It is a defense wound. All injuries especially at the upper extremities they could be tagged as defense wounds to fend off…attacks and these upper extremities are usually used to protect the head and the body.[58] The gap in the prosecution's evidence cannot be filled with mere speculation. Treachery cannot be appreciated absent the particulars as to the manner in which the aggression commenced or how the act unfolded and resulted in the victim's demise.[59] Any doubt as to its existence must, perforce, be resolved in favor of appellant. | |||||
|
2003-12-10 |
CARPIO MORALES, J. |
||||
| That appellant's hands were found positive for gunpowder nitrates corroborates the evidence of his guilt. [62] | |||||