This case has been cited 4 times or more.
|
2016-01-12 |
BRION, J. |
||||
| Generally, suggestiveness in the identification procedure should always be proven by evidence. If an allegation of suggestiveness is not proven, this court often affirms the conviction.[117] In Pavillare, this court ruled that the appellant who argued the impropriety of the police line-up should have presented during trial the police officers who conducted the line-up.[118] | |||||
|
2010-06-29 |
VELASCO JR., J. |
||||
| It is quite common for a witness to recognize a malefactor better when there is a face-to-face confrontation during the hearing. Jurisprudence is cognizant of this situation.[41] | |||||
|
2001-05-04 |
PARDO, J. |
||||
| We do not agree with the Solicitor General that accused-appellant was not under custodial investigation when he signed the confiscation receipt. It has been held repeatedly that custodial investigation commences when a person is taken into custody and is singled out as a suspect in the commission of a crime under investigation and the police officers begin to ask questions on the suspect's participation therein and which tend to elicit an admission.[39] Obviously, accused-appellant was a suspect from the moment the police team went to his house and ordered the uprooting of the marijuana plants in his backyard garden. | |||||
|
2000-08-09 |
PARDO, J. |
||||
| when Jocelyn left her in Niu's house, at a distant place in Tondo, Manila, unknown to her, she deprived Sweet of the freedom to leave the house at will. It is not necessary that the detention be prolonged.[30] The intention to deprive Sweet's parents of her custody is indicated by Jocelyn's hesitation for two days to disclose Sweet's whereabouts and more so by her actual taking of the child. Jocelyn's motive at this point is not relevant. It is not an element of the crime. | |||||