This case has been cited 6 times or more.
|
2016-01-12 |
BRION, J. |
||||
| Teehankee, Jr. introduced the totality of circumstances test as the standard for evaluating out-of-court testimonies because this court recognized that "con-uption of out-of-court identification contaminates the integrity of in-court identification[.]"[134] In Gamer, the witness' identification failed on the first level since the conditions at that time did not grant the witness ample opportunity to observe and remember the appearance of the accused. Hence, this court stated that "the in-court identification of the appellant. . . could have been tainted by the out-of-court (police line-up) procedure[.]"[135] | |||||
|
2012-06-25 |
PERALTA, J. |
||||
| This brings us to whether the guilt of petitioners for homicide and frustrated homicide has been established beyond cavil of doubt. The precept in all criminal cases is that the prosecution is bound by the invariable requisite of establishing the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt. The prosecution must rely on the strength of its own evidence and not on the evidence of the accused. The weakness of the defense of the accused does not relieve the prosecution of its responsibility of proving guilt beyond reasonable doubt.[133] By reasonable doubt is meant that doubt engendered by an investigation of the whole proof and an inability, after such investigation, to let the mind rest easy upon the certainty of guilt.[134] The overriding consideration is not whether the court doubts the innocence of the accused, but whether it entertains reasonable doubt as to his guilt.[135] | |||||
|
2006-05-03 |
QUISUMBING, J. |
||||
| We find People v. Gamer[35] cited by appellant inapplicable here. Unlike the prosecution eyewitness in Gamer, Maria never wavered in her identification of appellant. From the beginning and even under rigorous cross-examination, Maria steadfastly declared that it was only appellant whom she saw when her husband opened the door and who could have been responsible for the killing.[36] She testified: Q You said that when your husband opened the door and also placed the wooden bar down and at the same time opening the wooden door of your residence and store, there was a shot, will you please tell us if you saw the person who shot? A Yes, sir. Q Who was the person who shot Michael Awad? A Ronan Dulanas. Q When you said that the person who shot your husband, Michael Awad is one Ronan Dulanas, if that Ronan Dulanas is in Court, will you please point to him? A That one. (Witness pointing to a person inside the Courtroom, at the back, wearing a white shirt with collar and also wearing eyeglasses and when asked his name, he identified himself as Ronan Dulanas). x x x x Q Will you please tell us why you were able to identify that the person who shot your husband when your husband opened the wooden door was Ronan Dulanas? A Because I saw him.[37] She further testified on cross-examination: Q And you are telling the Honorable Court that you saw the accused clearly in your front when the door was opened by your husband? A Yes Sir.[38] | |||||
|
2003-12-02 |
CARPIO MORALES, J. |
||||
| In resolving the admissibility of and relying on out-of-court identification of suspects, courts have adopted the totality of circumstances test where they consider the following factors, viz: (1) the witness' opportunity to view the criminal at the time of the crime; (2) the witness' degree of attention at that time; (3) the accuracy of any prior description given by the witness; (4) the level of certainty demonstrated by the witness at the identification; (5) the length of time between the crime and the identification; and, (6) the suggestiveness of the identification procedure.[20] (Underscoring supplied) The totality of circumstances test has been fashioned to assure fairness as well as compliance with constitutional requirements of due process in regard to out-of-court identification.[21] | |||||
|
2001-12-03 |
QUISUMBING, J. |
||||
| In contrast to the testimonies of eyewitnesses positively identifying appellants as among the offenders and detailing their participation in the offense, all that appellants could offer as a defense is bare denial and alibi. The meaning of the word "alibi" is "elsewhere"[29] and for it to prosper, the accused must establish by clear and convincing evidence that: (1) he was in another place at the time the offense was perpetrated; and (2) it would be physically impossible for him to have been at the scene of the crime.[30] Appellants failed to discharge this burden. Hunters Street where Drew lived and Taguko area where Ramos allegedly was sleeping on the night of the incident are both in Tatalon Estate which also includes the area of Sto. Domingo and Araneta Avenue. From the houses where appellants claimed they were at the place of the incident in Araneta Avenue, Quezon City, will take no more than ten minutes of jeepney or car ride. Neither Ramos nor Drew showed by clear and convincing evidence that it was physically impossible for them to go from their sleeping quarters to the locus criminis at the time of the mauling of the victim. Thus, appellants' defense of denial and alibi cannot prevail over their positive identification by eyewitnesses who saw them at the scene of the crime. | |||||
|
2001-03-28 |
PARDO, J. |
||||
| Appellants' alibi and denial gain considerable strength in view of the unreliable identification of the perpetrators of the crime.[45] | |||||