This Court has held that the most natural reaction of victims of criminal violence is to strive to see the features and faces of their assailants and observe the manner in which the crime is committed. x x x. All too often, the face of the assailant and his body movements create a lasting impression on the victim’s mind and cannot thus be easily erased from his memory. Cordero positively identified both accused-appellants Devincio and Vicente as two of his kidnappers. He saw both accused- appellants’ faces before he was blindfolded. Thus, it cannot be said that the length of time between the crime and the identification of the accused- appellants, which was only 26 days, had any effect on Cordero’s memory, to render his positive identification flawed. People of the Philippines v. Vicente Lugnasin and DeVincio Guerrero G. R. No. 208404 24 February 2016 HEARSAY The term “hearsay” as used in the law on evidence, signifies evidence which is not founded upon the personal knowledge of the witness from whom it is elicited and which consequently does not depend wholly for its credibility and weight upon the confidence which the court may have in him; its value, if any, is measured by the credit to be given to some third person not sworn as a witness to that fact, and consequently, not subject to cross examination. If one therefore testifies to facts which he learned from a third person not sworn as a witness to those facts, his testimony is inadmissible as hearsay evidence. People of the Philippines v. Victor Padit G. R. No. 202978 1 February 2016
44 The reason for the exclusion of hearsay evidence is that the party against whom the hearsay testimony is presented is deprived of the right or opportunity to cross-examine the person to whom the statements are attributed. Moreover, the court is without opportunity to test the credibility of hearsay statements by observing the demeanor of the person who made them. People of the Philippines v. Victor Padit G. R. No. 202978 1 February 2016 DIRECT EVIDENCE AND CIRCUMSTANTIAL EVIDENCE Certainly, it is not only by direct evidence that an accused may be convicted, but for circumstantial evidence to sustain a conviction, following. are the guidelines: (1) there is more than one circumstance; (2) the facts from which the inferences are derived are proven; and (3) the combination of all the circumstances is as such as to produce a conviction beyond reasonable doubt. Decided cases expound that the circumstantial evidence presented and proved must constitute an unbroken chain which leads to one fair and reasonable conclusion pointing to the accused, to the exclusion of all others, as the guilty person. All the circumstances must be consistent with each other, consistent with the hypothesis that the accused is guilty and at the same time inconsistent with the hypothesis that he is innocent, and with every other rationale except that of guilt. People of the Philippines v. Fabian Urzais et al G. R. No. 207662 13 April 2016 DISPUTABLE PRESUMPTIONS Possessor as Culprit The application of disputable presumption found in Section 3 U), Rule 13 1 of the Rules of Court, that a person found in possession of a thing taken in the doing of a recent wrongful act is the taker and doer of the whole act, in this case
- Fall '18
- Jane Blair
- G. R.