This case has been cited 8 times or more.
|
2015-11-23 |
MENDOZA, J. |
||||
| The Court notes that the matter of particularity of the dates in the information was raised only for the first time on appeal. The rule is well-entrenched in this jurisdiction that objections as to matter of form or substance in the information cannot be made for the first time on appeal.[25] Biala failed to raise this issue before the RTC where he could have moved to quash the information or at least moved for a bill of particulars. | |||||
|
2008-04-09 |
REYES, R.T., J. |
||||
| More than that, the Court notes that the matter of particularity of the dates in the information is being raised for the first time on appeal. The rule is well-entrenched in this jurisdiction that objections as to matter of form or substance in the information cannot be made for the first time on appeal.[39] Appellant failed to raise the issue of defective informations before the trial court. He could have moved to quash the informations or at least for a bill of particulars. He did not. Clearly, he slumbered on his rights and awakened too late. | |||||
|
2006-02-13 |
PER CURIAM |
||||
| It is highly inconceivable that complainant would not recognize her own father, with whom she had been living for a long time. We have held that it is the most natural reaction for victims of criminal violence to strive to see the appearance of their assailant and observe the manner in which the crime was committed. Most often, the face and body movements of the assailants create a lasting impression which cannot be easily erased from their memory.[18] The impression becomes more profound where the malefactor is the victim's own father.[19] Also, Juvilie categorically testified that it was her father who raped her. It is unthinkable, if not completely preposterous, that a daughter would concoct a story of rape against her father, taking to mind the reverence and respect for elders that is too deeply ingrained in Filipino children.[20] It is well-settled that a categorical and positive identification of an accused, without any showing of ill-motive on the part of the eyewitness testifying on the matter, prevails over alibi and denial, which are negative and self-serving evidence undeserving of real weight in law unless substantiated by clear and convincing evidence.[21] | |||||
|
2004-07-06 |
TINGA, J, |
||||
| Moreover, appellant failed to raise the issue of the defective information before the trial court through a motion for bill of particulars or motion to quash the information. Such failure to object to the allegation in the information as to the time of commission of the rapes before appellant pleaded not guilty thereto amounted to a waiver of the defect in the information. Objections as to matters of form or substance in the information cannot be made for the first time on appeal. [38] | |||||
|
2003-12-11 |
PANGANIBAN, J. |
||||
| "Indeed, this Court has held that the allegations that rapes were committed, `before and until October 15, 1994,' `sometime in the year 1991 and the days thereafter,' and `on or about and sometime in the year 1998' constitute sufficient compliance with Rule 110, §11. In any event, even if the information failed to allege with certainty the time of the commission of the rapes, the defect, if any, was cured by the evidence presented during the trial and any objections based on this ground must be deemed waived as a result of accused-appellant's failure to object before arraignment. Accused-appellant's remedy was to move either for a bill of particulars of for the quashal of the information on the ground that it does not conform substantially to the prescribed form."[19] The rationale for Section 6 of Rule 110 of the Rules of Court is to inform the accused of the nature and cause of the accusation.[20] This right has not been violated in the present case. Appellant's counsel took an active part in the trial by cross-examining the prosecution witnesses and presenting evidence for the defense. It is now too late in the day for appellant to claim that the Complaint was defective. Furthermore, the defense never objected to the presentation of the prosecution evidence proving that the offense had been committed in April 1997. It has not been shown that the testimony of the victim (to the effect that she had been raped during that month) caught appellant by surprise and thus made it difficult for him to defend himself properly. | |||||
|
2003-06-10 |
VITUG, J. |
||||
| Maricar's failure to shout during the sexual assault is not all that strange. Not every witness to or victim of a crime can be supposed to always act in conformity with the usual expectations of everyone;[12] in fact, there is no known and accepted standard therefor. Moreover, to attribute to her the sophistication of an adult woman would be to brush aside the fact that Maricar is just a young girl. Even then, it would be unreasonable to judge her actions on the traumatic experience by any norm of behavior that, if at all, may be expected from mature persons.[13] | |||||
|
2002-06-26 |
BELLOSILLO, J. |
||||
| We are not naive; hence, we disagree. The fact that complainant failed to make an outcry while being molested does not diminish her credibility for the failure of a victim to shout for help does not negate rape.[36] In fact, the absence of a struggle or an outcry from the victim is immaterial in the rape of a child below twelve (12) years of age because the law presumes that the victim, on account of her tender age, does not have a will of her own.[37] Neither can her failure to immediately report the incident to anyone be taken against her. It has long been established that the delay in the filing of a case does not necessarily impair the credibility of the victim - experience teaches us that many victims of rape never complain or file criminal charges against the rapist, for they prefer to bear the ignominy and pain in silence, rather than reveal their shame to the world or risk the offender's making good on his threats.[38] | |||||
|
2001-02-19 |
QUISUMBING, J. |
||||
| Nor should the delay or vacillation be taken against her, as appellant would have us do. Delay does not necessarily impair the victim's credibility. Experience teaches us that many victims of rape never complain or file criminal charges against the rapist, preferring instead to bear the pain and ignominy in silence, rather than unveil their shame to the world or risk the offender making good on his threats.[35] As long as the delay or vacillation is adequately explained, said delay does not necessarily undermine the complaining witness' credibility.[36] Among reasons we have considered sufficient to explain delay are fear of reprisal, social humiliation, familial considerations, and economic reasons. In the present cases, recall that private complainant had been threatened into silence for fear of possible harm to herself and to her family. Her reason for the eleven months' delay in reporting her ravishment is adequate. Said delay does not make her credibility suspect. | |||||