This case has been cited 6 times or more.
|
2003-07-22 |
VITUG, J. |
||||
| Appellant would fault Felisa for her delay in the filing of the complaint. It had long been settled that the failure to promptly file a complaint to the proper authorities would not necessarily destroy the truth per se of the complaint[6] nor would it impair the credibility of the complainant, particularly if such delay were satisfactorily explained.[7] In this case, Felisa elucidated that Col. Villaroman, the superior officer of both her husband and appellant, advised the couple against the filing of the complaint at the time for it could imperil a police operations still then being undertaken against a drug syndicate.[8] | |||||
|
2003-05-09 |
SANDOVAL-GUTIERREZ, J. |
||||
| As earlier mentioned, appellant's defenses are mere alibi and denial. He testified that at the time the crime took place, he was in his auntie's house in Muson, San Jose del Monte, Bulacan. When probed by the trial court, he categorically stated that the house is only 40 meters away from the scene of the crime and may be traveled in about three or five minutes.[34] For the defense of alibi to prosper, it must be convincing enough to preclude any doubt on the physical impossibility of the presence of the accused at the locus criminis at the time of the incident.[35] Certainly, the required impossibility does not exist here. | |||||
|
2002-02-15 |
QUISUMBING, J. |
||||
| We have long held that delay in making a criminal accusation does not impair the credibility of witnesses if such delay is satisfactorily explained.[22] The failure of the victim to immediately report a case is not an indication of a fabricated charge.[23] We are convinced that Maylene and her mother were being truthful about their decision not to disclose Maylene's experience at the time. It is consistent with behavior of ordinary Filipinos in a small community where everybody knows everyone else. We find their testimony on this point believable, especially since Maylene was only 11 years old then. It is not incredible that her family would prefer to keep secret what she had undergone rather than subject their entire family to a scandal. | |||||
|
2000-06-29 |
PANGANIBAN, J. |
||||
| Appellant's further allegation that it was a certain Untog who sexually molested private complainants does not affect his culpability. Prior sexual intercourse with a different person is irrelevant in a rape case.[33] | |||||