Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

PEOPLE v. JOVENCIO LUCAS Y PARCUTELA

This case has been cited 7 times or more.

	GR No. 188551 2013-02-27	EDMUNDO ESCAMILLA Y JUGO v. PEOPLE SERENO, C.J.
The wife of petitioner testified that both of them went to sleep at 9:00 p.m. and were awakened at 3:00 a.m. by the banging on their door.[81] However, she also said that she did not know if petitioner stayed inside their house, or if he went somewhere else during the entire time she was asleep.[82] Her testimony does not show that he was indeed at home when the crime happened. At the most, it only establishes that he was at home before and after the shooting. Her lack of knowledge regarding his whereabouts between 1:00 a.m. and 3:00 a.m. belies the credibility of his alibi. Even so, the testimonies of relatives deserve scant consideration, especially when there is positive identification[83] by three witnesses.
	GR No. 187049 2010-05-04	PEOPLE v. LITO MACAPANAS Y ECIJA VILLARAMA, JR., J.
Delay in revealing the commission of rape is not an indication of a fabricated charge.[25] It has been repeatedly held that the delay in reporting a rape incident due to death threats cannot be taken against the victim.[26] The charge of rape is rendered doubtful only if the delay was unreasonable and unexplained. In this case, the delay in reporting the sexual assault was reasonable and explained. AAA adequately explained that she did not immediately inform anyone of her ordeal because she was ashamed and afraid because appellant had threatened to kill her.[27] Thus, her reluctance that caused the delay should not be taken against her. Neither can it be used to diminish her credibility nor undermine the charge of rape.
	GR NO. 171020 2007-03-14	PEOPLE v. ALFREDO PANGILINAN Y TRINIDAD CHICO-NAZARIO, J.
The delay and initial reluctance of a rape victim to make public the assault on her virtue is neither unknown nor uncommon. Particularly in incestuous rape, this Court has consistently held that delay in reporting the offense is not indicative of a fabricated charge.[38] It has been repeatedly held that the delay in reporting a rape incident due to death threats cannot be taken against the victim.[39] The fact of delay does not necessarily lead to an acquittal. In several cases we have decided,[40] the delay lasted for two years or more; nevertheless, the victims were found to be credible. The charge of rape is rendered doubtful only if the delay was unreasonable and unexplained.
	GR NO. 168649 2006-12-06	PEOPLE v. JOSE ALVIZO AUDINE CHICO-NAZARIO, J.
We are not persuaded. The delay and initial reluctance of a rape victim to make public the assault on her virtue is neither unknown nor uncommon. Particularly in incestuous rape, this Court has consistently held that delay in reporting the offense is not indicative of a fabricated charge.[32] It has been repeatedly held that the delay in reporting a rape incident due to death threats cannot be taken against the victim.[33] The charge of rape is rendered doubtful only if the delay was unreasonable and unexplained. In this case, private complainant, who was fourteen years old when she was ravished, satisfactorily explained why she did not immediately report the matter to anybody. She revealed that she is afraid of her father and that the latter threatened to kill her and her siblings if she would divulge the sexual attack on her.[34] Accused-appellant, being her father, exercises moral ascendancy and influence over her. Thus, her reluctance that caused the delay should not be taken against her. Neither can it be used to diminish her credibility nor undermine the charge of rape.
	GR NO. 166546 2006-09-26	PEOPLE v. ROGELIO ARSAYO Y LAVAQUIZ CHICO-NAZARIO, J.
We are not convinced. It is not uncommon for young girls to conceal for some time the assault against their virtue.[41] Delay in revealing the commission of rape is not an indication of a fabricated charge.[42] It has been repeatedly held that the delay in reporting a rape incident due to death threats cannot be taken against the victim.[43] The charge of rape is rendered doubtful only if the delay was unreasonable and unexplained. In this case, private complainant, who is barely in her teens, satisfactorily explained why she did not immediately inform her mother of her ordeal. According to her, she is afraid of her stepfather and that the latter threatened to kill her and her family if she would divulge the sexual attack on her.[44] Appellant, being her stepfather, exercises moral ascendancy and influence over her. Thus, her reluctance that caused the delay should not be taken against her. Neither can it be used to diminish her credibility nor undermine the charge of rape.
	GR Nos. 143002-03 2003-07-17	PEOPLE v. CHARMIE SERVANO Y GAOR CORONA, J.
Appellant's obvious pretense cannot prevail over the testimony of private complainant which the trial court found to be "categorical, straightforward, detailed and consistent." When the offended party is a young and immature girl, courts are inclined to lend credence to their version of what transpired, not only because of their relative vulnerability but also because of the shame and embarrassment to which they would be exposed by court trial if the matter about which they testified were not true.[7] More so when, as here, the private complainant was appellant's own daughter. Generally, no young woman will accuse her own father of so grave a crime as rape unless she has truly been aggrieved.[8] Besides, we note that private complainant could not hold back her emotions and cried profusely at a certain point during the trial.[9] It is a matter of judicial cognizance that the spontaneous crying of the victim during her testimony is evidence that speaks well of her credibility.[10]