This case has been cited 6 times or more.
|
2013-06-03 |
BRION, J. |
||||
| We are not persuaded. "AAA's" momentary inaction will neither diminish nor affect her credibility. "The filing of complaints of rape months, even years, after their commission may or may not dent the credibility of witness and of testimony, depending on the circumstances attendant thereto."[19] "It does not diminish the complainant's credibility or undermine the charges of rape when the delay can be attributed to the pattern of fear instilled by the threats of bodily harm, specially by one who exercises moral ascendancy over the victim."[20] In this case, not long after the initial rape, appellant threatened "AAA" that he would kill her and her mother if ever she would tell anyone about what happened. At that time, "AAA" was only 11 years old and was living under the same roof with the latter whom she treated as a father. Obviously, the threat "AAA" received from appellant, coupled with his moral ascendancy, is enough to cow and intimidate "AAA." Being young and inexperienced, it instilled tremendous fear in her mind. In People v. Domingo,[21] we ruled that the effect of fear and intimidation instilled in the victim's mind cannot be measured against any given hard-and-fast rule such that it is viewed in the context of the victim's perception and judgment not only at the time of the commission of the crime but also at the time immediately thereafter. In any event, "the failure of the victim to immediately report the rape is not necessarily an indication of a fabricated charge."[22] | |||||
|
2013-01-23 |
DEL CASTILLO, J. |
||||
| The Court disagrees. Indeed, there was no prompt revelation of what befell "AAA." But this is not enough reason to discredit her. A delay in reporting a rape case for two months or longer, as in this case, cannot be taken against the rape victim. "[L]ong silence and delay in reporting the crime of rape have not always been construed as indications of a false accusation."[12] "A rape charge becomes doubtful only when the delay [or inaction] in revealing its commission is unreasonable and unexplained."[13] In People v. Domingo,[14] we held that "it is not uncommon that a rape victim conceal for some time the assault against her person on account of fear of the threats posed by her assailant."[15] This is exactly the situation in this case. "AAA's" delay in filing the Complaint is not without a valid reason. She was cowed by appellant's threats which hindered her from immediately reporting her painful ordeal to the authorities. | |||||
|
2010-09-29 |
PEREZ, J. |
||||
| The Court is not persuaded by the defense claim that the series of rape incidents could not have happened without the other members of the family being made aware of it. In a long line of cases, this Court has ruled that a small living quarter has not been considered to be a safe refuge from a sexual assault.[28] Rape can be committed in the same room with the rapist's spouse or where other members of the family are also sleeping,[29] in a house where there are other occupants or even in places which to many might appear unlikely and high-risk venues for its commission.[30] Lust, it has been said before, is apparently no respecter of time and place.[31] Neither is it necessary for the rape to be committed in an isolated place, for rapists bear no respect for locale and time in carrying out their evil deed.[32] | |||||
|
2010-08-09 |
VELASCO JR., J. |
||||
| That the act was carried out in a public place does not make it unbelievable. The evil in man has no conscience--the beast in him bears no respect for time and place, driving him to commit rape anywhere, even in places where people congregate such as in parks, along the roadside, within school premises, and inside a house where there are other occupants.[6] There is no rule that rape can only be committed in seclusion.[7] The commission of rape is not hindered by time or place as in fact it can be committed even in the most public of places.[8] Clearly, the argument of accused-appellant that there could be no rape as the place was in full view of the public does not have a legal leg to stand on. The fact that the area was in the public eye would not prevent a potential rapist from carrying out his criminal intent. | |||||
|
2009-11-25 |
NACHURA, J. |
||||
| Contrary to the CA's ruling, we find that the RTC correctly disregarded Aldemita's testimony. Between the RTC and the CA, it is the former's assessment of the witnesses' credibility that should control.[23] | |||||
|
2009-01-30 |
CARPIO MORALES, J. |
||||
| The supposed stepfather-stepdaughter relationship between appellant and AAA, on the other hand, was alleged in each of the Informations. The stepfather-stepdaughter relationship as a qualifying circumstance presupposes that the victim's mother and the accused contracted marriage.[34] The prosecution, however, did not present proof that BBB and appellant did contract marriage. What appellant claimed is that he and BBB are merely common-law spouses ("live-in" partners),[35] which could also qualify the offense but only if the same is alleged in each of the Informations and proven at the trial.[36] The appellate court thus correctly held that appellant committed six (6) counts of simple rape. | |||||