This case has been cited 4 times or more.
|
2009-04-24 |
CARPIO MORALES, J. |
||||
| As for AAA's one week delay in reporting the rape, she did not know what to do as she feared appellant's threat that he would kill her if she told anybody of the incident.[21] It has been held that delay or vacillation in making a criminal accusation does not necessarily weaken the credibility of a witness where, as here, such delay is satisfactorily explained.[22] | |||||
|
2008-11-28 |
AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J. |
||||
| Such argument must fail. Inconsistencies in the narration of the prosecution witnesses on minor details do not affect the weight of their testimonies. Testimonies of the prosecution witnesses cannot be expected to be uniform to the last details.[49] Moreover, the testimonies of witnesses to a crime could not be expected to be error-free all throughout. Different persons have different impressions and recollections of the same incident.[50] Even the most truthful witnesses can make mistakes or innocent lapses that do not necessarily affect their credibility.[51] Thus, findings of trial courts on the credibility of witnesses are entitled to great weight on appeal, and the rule is not changed simply because of some inconsequential inconsistencies that are discovered upon a fault-finding scrutiny of the records.[52] | |||||
|
2006-12-14 |
YNARES-SANTIAGO, J. |
||||
| It is such a state of facts in the mind of the prosecutor as would lead a person of ordinary caution and prudence to believe or entertain an honest or strong suspicion that a thing is so. The term does not mean "actual or positive cause;" nor does it import absolute certainty. It is merely based on opinion and reasonable belief. Thus, a finding of probable cause does not require an inquiry into whether there is sufficient evidence to procure a conviction. It is enough that it is believed that the act or omission complained of constitutes the offense charged. Precisely, there is a trial for the reception of evidence of the prosecution in support of the charge. In the instant case, we find that the acts complained of are sufficient to sustain a finding of probable cause. The elements of grave coercion under Article 286 of the Revised Penal Code are as follows: 1) that a person is prevented by another from doing something not prohibited by law, or compelled to do something against his will, be it right or wrong; 2) that the prevention or compulsion is effected by violence, threats or intimidation; and 3) that the person who restrains the will and liberty of another has no right to do so, or in other words, that the restraint is not made under authority of law or in the exercise of any lawful right.[9] | |||||
|
2001-10-25 |
PER CURIAM |
||||
| The primary element of the crime of kidnapping is actual confinement, detention and restraint of the victim.[37] A review of the prosecution's own narration of events shows that the prosecution did not establish actual confinement, detention or restraint of the child, which is the primary element of kidnapping. The victim's and Reyes' testimonies do not adequately prove that the victim was forcefully transported, locked up or restrained.[38] The mother's testimony - based on what Elmer Reyes said - was obviously hearsay and could not establish what appellant's intent was. Absent any indubitable proof of a purposeful or knowing action by the accused to forcibly restrain the victim, there can be no taking coupled with intent to complete the commission of the offense.[39] | |||||