This case has been cited 2 times or more.
|
2006-08-31 |
QUISUMBING, J. |
||||
| More importantly, it must be emphasized that the testimonial disparities do not negate the fact that Amarillo was positively identified by the prosecution witnesses as the malefactor. There is no contrariety with regard to this vital fact. Amarillo's denial cannot prevail over the positive identification by credible witnesses.[20] The unbending jurisprudence is that the trial court's findings on the matter of credibility of witnesses are entitled to the highest degree of respect and will not be disturbed on appeal in the absence of any showing that it had overlooked, misunderstood or misapplied some facts or circumstances of weight and substance which would have affected the result of the case.[21] | |||||
|
2004-06-08 |
PANGANIBAN, J. |
||||
| When RA 8294 took effect on July 6, 1997[37] -- nearly six months after the affirmation of private respondent's conviction under PD 1866 -- the use of an unlicensed firearm was considered merely an aggravating circumstance,[38] if murder or homicide or any other crime was committed with it.[39] Hence, the use of an unlicensed firearm in killing a person "may no longer be the source of a separate conviction for the crime of illegal possession of a deadly weapon."[40] Only one felony may be charged -- murder in this instance.[41] | |||||