This case has been cited 2 times or more.
|
2011-03-02 |
VELASCO JR., J. |
||||
| The identification of an accused by an eyewitness is a vital piece of evidence and most decisive of the success or failure of the case for the prosecution. But even while significant, an eyewitness identification, which authors not infrequently would describe to be "inherently suspect," is not as accurate and authoritative as the scientific forms of identification evidence like by fingerprint or by DNA testing.[35] x x x | |||||
|
2006-05-03 |
QUISUMBING, J. |
||||
| Appellant further questions the Court of Appeals observation that Maria's hysteria explained her failure to immediately disclose appellant's identity to the police. He claims that Maria was not in such a state since she was conscious enough to answer SPO1 Mira's queries, and aware of what was happening around her. He cites her apparent self-control immediately after her husband was shot, such that she was calm enough to stay home with her children while neighbors brought Michael to the hospital. Appellant likewise doubts Maria's avowal of concern for Michael's life, when she decided to stay home with her kids. Further, he alleges, Maria strangely failed to report him to the police to be immediately arrested. He cites People v. Faustino,[43] where this Court said that the natural tendency would have been to report a crime and to describe the malefactors at the earliest opportunity, especially where the victim is so closely connected to the witness who claims to have seen the commission of the crime.[44] | |||||