People vs Versoza – Objections

Appellant Avendaos view that the identities of the malefactors can only be
established if the witness knows their names.
This is puerile reasoning. Identification of a person is not established solely
through knowledge of the name of a person. Familiarity with physical features
particularly those of the face, is actually the best was to identify a person. One
may be familiar with the face but not necessarily the name. It does not follow, therefore,
that to be able to identify a person, one must first know his name.[22] Moreover, it is
completely illogical to equate and limit positive identification to a knowledge of the real
names of the culprits since more often than not, robbers victimize people who are
complete strangers to them and who do not know them by face or name purposely to
avoid being recognized and positively identified.
It is, therefore, enough that an eyewitness positively identify the culprits in a crime
by means of their faces or physical features. Experience shows that precisely because
of the unusual acts of bestiality committed right before their eyes, eyewitnesses,
especially the victims of a crime, can remember with a high degree of reliability the
identify of criminals.[23] The natural reaction of victims of criminal violence is to strive to
see the appearance of their assailants and observe the manner the crime was
committed. Most often, the face and the body movements of the assailants create an
impression that cannot be erased easily from their memory. [24] In the instant case,
moreover, it was not shown that Dojenas had any ill motive to falsely testify against
appellants. In this age of indifference, this citizen should be commended for not shirking
from his duty as a responsible member of society.

It bears stressing that appellant Avendao raised the issue of his being
charged and convicting allegedly under a wrong name for the first time on
appeal. When eyewitness Dojenas identified him in court, no objections were
made by the defense as to Avendaos first and middle names and none were
registered in the transcript of stenographic notes. Neither do the records bear out
any effort on Avendaos part to raise the issue that the person being charged with
the crime is named Jerry Avendao y Mendoza and not Cherry Abendao y
Pagatpat.Having failed to make an objection as to his exact name in the course of
the trial, it was too late for appellant Avendao to raise the matter on appeal. It is
axiomatic that an objection in the course of the oral examination of a witness should be
made as soon as the grounds shall become apparent. Since no objection to the
admissibility of evidence was made in the court below, an objection raised for the first
time on appeal will not be considered.[25]