This case has been cited 2 times or more.
|
2004-02-05 |
VITUG, J. |
||||
| Understandably, appellant assails the reliability of the identification made by the prosecution for, after all, it is the only way by which his alibi could carry some weight. It is well-settled that a categorical and positive identification of an accused, without any showing of ill-motive on the part of the eyewitness testifying on the matter, prevails over alibi and denial, which are negative and self-serving evidence undeserving of real weight in law unless substantiated by clear and convincing evidence.[8] In this case, both Genalyn and Gino have been able to identify appellant by the lightning flashes that illuminated their otherwise dark house and through his voice. It is known that the most natural reaction of a witness to a crime is to strive to look at the appearance of the perpetrator and to observe the manner in which the offense is perpetrated.[9] Even the split-second illumination by a flash of lightning could suffice to confirm identification of appellant. Identification of an accused by his voice has also been accepted particularly in cases where, such as in this case, the witnesses have known the malefactor personally for so long[10] and so intimately.[11] In People v. Calixtro,[12] the Court has given credence to the blindfolded rape victim's identification of the accused, a barriomate, by his voice. Still in an earlier case, the Court has said:"x x x [C]omplainant's identification of the appellant was not based solely on the latter's physical defect, but by his voice as well, when he warned complainant, `Flor, keep quiet.' Although complainant did not see appellant's face during the sexual act because the house was dark, nevertheless, no error could have been committed by the complainant in identifying the voice of the accused, inasmuch as complainant and appellant were neighbors."[13] The young victim, narrating her ordeal, declared before the trial court: | |||||
|
2003-12-11 |
PANGANIBAN, J. |
||||
| Q Then according to you after you saw that Eduardo Bagtas was hacked and hit on his neck you ran away, where did you go? A I went home."[25] Categorical, candid and convincing were the testimonies of these witnesses. Precisely because of the unusual acts of violence committed right before their eyes, they remembered with a high degree of reliability the identities of the criminals.[26] This Court has noted that in many crimes of violence, the most natural reaction of persons involved in an attack -- either instinctively or as a means to fend off any further attack -- is to strive to see the faces and the appearances of the assailants,[27] to observe the manner in which the crime is committed, and to approximate what might be the latter's next move.[28] | |||||