Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

PEOPLE v. LEE RODRIGO

This case has been cited 11 times or more.

	GR No. 174471 2016-01-12	PEOPLE v. JERRY PEPINO Y RUERAS BRION, J.
Another circumstance that is evaluated is the length of time between the crime and the identification. People's memories tend to fade through time.[69] It is ideal that prosecution witnesses identify the suspect immediately after the crime. An identification made two (2) days after the criminal incident is found to be acceptable.[70] This court found that a corporeal identification made five and a half months might not be as reliable.[71]
	GR No. 199522 2015-06-22	RICKY DINAMLING v. PEOPLE PERALTA, J.
Denial and alibi, as defenses of an accused in a criminal case, have been consistently held as inherently weak[34] and which, unless supported by clear and convincing evidence, cannot prevail over the positive declarations of the victim.[35] In general, a plea of denial and alibi is not given much weight relative to the affirmative testimony of the offended party.[36] The only exception to this rule is where there is no effective identification, or where the identification of the accused has been fatally tainted by irregularity and attendant inconsistencies.[37]
	GR No. 202868 2013-10-02	PEOPLE v. MICHAEL ESPERA Y CUYACOT LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, J.
[F]irst, the identification of the accused as perpetrator of the crime, taking into account the credibility of the prosecution witness who made the identification as well as the prosecution's compliance with legal and constitutional standards; and second, all the elements constituting the crime were duly proven by the prosecution to be present. x x x.[48]
	GR No. 185166 2011-01-26	PEOPLE v. MARK LESTER DELA ROSA Y SUELLO PEREZ, J.
In People v. Rosialda[61] citing People v. Rodrigo,[62] this Court pronounced that once the prosecution overcomes the presumption of innocence by proving the elements of the crime and the identity of the accused as perpetrator beyond reasonable doubt, the burden of evidence then shifts to the defense which shall then test the strength of the prosecution's case either by showing that no crime was in fact committed or that the accused could not have committed or did not commit the imputed crime, or at the very least, by casting doubt on the guilt of the accused.[63]
	GR No. 176389 2010-12-14	ANTONIO LEJANO v. PEOPLE ABAD, J.
In May 1991, on invitation of another aunt, Susan Brottman, Webb moved to Anaheim Hills, California.[33] During his stay there, he occupied himself with playing basketball once or twice a week with Steven Keeler[34] and working at his cousin-in-law's pest control company.[35] Webb presented the company's logbook showing the tasks he performed,[36] his paycheck,[37] his ID, and other employment papers. On June 14, 1991 he applied for a driver's license[38] and wrote three letters to his friend Jennifer Cabrera.[39]
	GR No. 176389 2010-12-14	ANTONIO LEJANO v. PEOPLE ABAD, J.
This Court has consistently held that the rule on the trial court's appreciation of evidence must bow to the superior rule that the prosecution must prove the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt. The law presumes an accused innocent, and this presumption must prevail unless overturned by competent and credible proof.[122] Thus, we are tasked to consider two crucial points in sustaining a judgment of conviction: first, the identification of the accused as perpetrator of the crime, taking into account the credibility of the prosecution witness who made the identification as well as the prosecution's compliance with legal and constitutional standards; and second, all the elements constituting the crime were duly proven by the prosecution to be present.[123]
	GR No. 182555 2010-09-07	LENIDO LUMANOG v. PEOPLE VILLARAMA, JR., J.
Upon reaching the area at 8:45 a.m., they saw several onlookers around and near a black Honda Accord with Plate No. RNA-777 on a stop position in the middle lane of Katipunan Avenue facing south going to Libis. They found the victim's bloodied and bullet-riddled body partly slumped onto the pavement at the car's left door, which was open. The front windshield and sliding glass windows on the left and right side were shattered; a hole was seen on the glass window of the left rear door, apparently pierced by a bullet. Glass splinters were scattered inside the car and on the pavement at both sides of the car. On orders of Chief Insp. Villena, PO2 Daganta and PO1 Francisco assisted by a certain Cesar Espiritu, immediately brought the victim to the Quirino Memorial Hospital in Project 4, Quezon City. SPO2 Magundacan was instructed to stay behind to cordon the area for the start of the investigation while Chief Insp. Villena went to their station to get his camera.[5] After ten (10) minutes, Chief Insp. Villena returned and took pictures of the crime scene, and also of the victim at the hospital.[6] SPO2 Magundacan was able to pick up several spent shells and two (2) slugs, apparently fired from .45 and 9 mm. pistols.[7] A sketch was prepared by PO2 Daganta who also interviewed some of the witnesses present at the crime scene.[8] The spot report and list of recovered items (including a Philippine Military Academy gold ring on which was engraved the name "Rolando N. Abadilla") were later prepared by SPO2 Magundacan at the police station.[9]
	GR No. 188330 2010-08-25	PEOPLE v. ROGELIO J. ROSIALDA VELASCO JR., J.
As correctly ruled by the courts a quo, for the defense of frame-up to prosper, the accused must present clear and convincing evidence of such fact. It must be noted at this juncture that a prima facie case against Rosialda had already been established. The burden of evidence now lies with him to prove his defense of frame-up. Correlatively, the Court ruled in People v. Rodrigo:[10]