This case has been cited 1 times or more.
|
2001-02-28 |
MENDOZA, J. |
||||
| In the case of Rusty Mendiola, the trial court disregarded the testimony of Rosemarie Balbuena on the ground that it was contradicted by Pfc. Abrigo of the Taguig Police Force. Rosemarie testified that she saw the killing of her brother-in-law Angelito Balbuena by a group which included Rusty Mendiola. She claimed she was able to identify the latter because the place was lighted by a Meralco lamppost and by a nearby store.[19] But a defense witness, Pfc. Pedro Abrigo, testified that when he arrived at the scene of the crime, the place was dark, and he had to use a flashlight to make an investigation.[20] The trial court placed greater weight on Abrigo's testimony than on that of Rosemarie Balbuena. But the trial court failed to take into account the fact that Pfc. Abrigo arrived at the crime scene at 11:00 p.m., two hours after the crime was committed, after the stores in the vicinity had already closed.[21] While it was not dark in the area two hours earlier, conditions could very well have changed two hours later. For one, the sari-sari stores from which much of the illumination came could have closed down because of the incident. This case is similar to People v. Narvasa,[22] in which it was held that the spot where a stabbing occurred could not be said to be poorly lighted so as to impair visibility because the electric light from the houses in the vicinity as well as the lamppost were more than sufficient to illuminate the area and make it possible for the eyewitness to clearly identify the person who attacked the deceased. | |||||