A: Natural. Q: That car was going to the north or to the south? A: To the north. Q: Meaning to say, it was proceed(ing) to Danao? A: Yes. Q: And it was timely when you looked at the motorcycle that car was passing alighted (sic) to (sic) the motorcycle. Is that correct? A: Yes. Q: The lights of the car hit the motorcycle directly. Is that correct? A: It was lighted.  We have said before that: Visibility is indeed a vital factor in the determination of whether or not an eyewitness could have identified the perpetrator of a crime. However, it is settled that when conditions of visibility are favorable, and the witnesses do not appear to be biased, their assertion as to the identity of the malefactor should normally be accepted.Illumination produced by kerosene lamp or a flashlight is sufficient to allow identification of persons. Wicklamps, flashlights, even moonlight or starlight may, in proper situations be considered sufficient illumination, making the attack on the credibility of witnesses solely on that ground unmeritorious.  Page 5 of 8
In lending added credence to CLEOFEs testimony, it is not amiss to state that relatives of a victim of a crime have a natural knack for remembering the face of the assailant and they, more than anybody else, would be concerned with obtaining justice for the victim by the malefactor being brought to the face of the law. Indeed, family members who have witnessed the killing of a loved one usually strive to remember the faces of the assailants.  Even assuming that CLEOFE did not actually identify OSCAR as the driver of the getaway motorcycle, sufficient circumstantial evidence was established to uphold his conviction. Section 4, Rule 133 of the Revised Rules of Court provides that: Circumstantial evidence, when sufficient . -- Circumstantial evidence is sufficient for conviction if: (a) There is more than one circumstance; (b) The facts from which the inferences are derived are proven; and (c) The combination of all the circumstances is such as to produce a conviction beyond reasonable doubt. Circumstantial evidence is that evidence which proves a fact or series of facts from which the facts in issue may be established by inference. Such evidence is founded on experience and observed facts and coincidences establishing a connection between the known and proven facts and the facts sought to be proved.  The following circumstances based chiefly on Jose Pepitos testimony 35 were established by the State: 1. Jose Pepito saw OSCAR and a companion drinking beer at Myrnas store at Bo. Pitogo, Consolacion, Cebu in the evening of 26 October 1991, and then leaving towards Pag-utlan, Yati, Liloan, on board a motorcycle. 2. Several minutes later, an unidentified man shot JACINTO at the gate of his mothers house in Pag-utlan, Yati, Liloan, Cebu.
You've reached the end of your free preview.
Want to read all 8 pages?
- Fall '16
- Supreme Court of the United States, Oscar, CEBU, Jacinto Pepito