the defense. In fact, in answer to the question of private prosecutor whether witnessCleofe Pepito had a good look at the man who was driving the motorcycle, her answerwas a definite yes, and when she was asked as to why she was definite, her answerwas that she was familiar with his face because she had often seen him. Later on, asrecords show, this witness was able to explain her familiarity and it was the result ofhaving been instructed by her mother to collect accounts supposedly due her motherfrom the accused... Visibility is indeed a vital factor in the determination of whether or not an eyewitnesscould have identified the perpetrator of a crime.However, it is settled that whenconditions of visibility are favorable, and the witnesses do not appear to be biased, theirassertion as to the identity of the malefactor should normally be accepted. Illuminationproduced by kerosene lamp or a flashlight is sufficient to allow identification ofpersons. Wicklamps, flashlights, even moonlight or starlight may, in proper situations beconsidered sufficient illumination, making the attack on the credibility of witnesses solelyon that ground unmeritorious.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
You've reached the end of your free preview.
Want to read all 8 pages?
- Fall '16
- Supreme Court of the United States, Legal burden of proof, Trial court, Moisesa Pepito