This case has been cited 2 times or more.
|
2008-07-28 |
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. | |||||
|
2001-12-05 |
YNARES-SANTIAGO, J. |
||||
| Fifth, it is equally odd that while accused-appellant claims that he was fired upon, neither he nor the eyewitnesses to the incident was able to identify the supposed gunman, considering that it is the most natural reaction for victims of criminal violence to look at the faces of their assailants and observe the manner in which the crime was committed.[38] Most often, the face of the attacker, and his body movements create lasting impressions which cannot be easily erased from their memory.[39] Curiously too, neither were any slugs or spent shells from the alleged assailant's firearm recovered from the crime scene. | |||||