This case has been cited 2 times or more.
|
2006-09-26 |
CHICO-NAZARIO, J. |
||||
| The rulings in the Pimentel and Castro cases do not apply to the case at bar. In said cases, the delay consisted of 39 days and 5 months, respectively. The accused therein were acquitted because other circumstances, not merely the fact of the delay in the reporting of the rape, were taken into account in determining the veracity of the accusations and the credibility of the accuser. The fact of delay does not necessarily lead to an acquittal. In several cases we have decided,[45] the delay lasted for two years or more, nevertheless, the victims were found to be credible. In People v. Hortillano,[46] we ruled that other relevant facts and circumstances must be likewise considered to determine the veracity of the accusations. These circumstances are not present in the case under review. As above-mentioned, We found the delay to be reasonable and sufficiently explained. The testimony of the victim herself has convinced the Court that her accusation has a ring of truth sufficient to justify the conviction of appellant. | |||||