This case has been cited 5 times or more.
|
2001-01-24 |
QUISUMBING, J. |
||||
| In rape trials the issue, more often than not, is the credibility of the victim. Since the participants are usually the only witnesses in the trial of crimes of this nature, the conviction or acquittal of the accused would virtually depend on the credibility of the complainant's testimony. Hence, the testimony of the offended party should not be received with precipitate credulity.[7] But when a rape victim's testimony is straightforward, unflawed by any material or significant inconsistency, then it deserves full credit. If found credible, the declaration of facts given by the offended party alone would be sufficient to sustain a conviction.[8] | |||||
|
2001-01-22 |
YNARES-SANTIAGO, J. |
||||
| At any rate, the private complainant's delay in making public her defilement can not be taken against her given the prevailing facts of the case. Only recently in People v. Fernando Watimar[36] which, in turn, cited the case of People v. Arthur De Leon y Lagmay @ "Joel",[37] "[t]his Court has consistently held that delay in reporting rape incidents in the face of physical violence cannot be taken against the victim. A rape victim's action is oftentimes overwhelmed by fear rather than reason. It is fear springing from the initial rape that the perpetrator hopes to build up a climate of extreme psychological terror, which would, he hopes, numb his victim to silence and submissiveness."[38] While indeed the victim may have tarried in reporting her defilement, the hiatus in reporting the crime will not extricate accused-appellant from his predicament. Likewise, in People v. Conrado Cabana @ Randy,[39] this Court ruled that - | |||||
|
2000-10-05 |
YNARES-SANTIAGO, J. |
||||
| Q: During that period since the report made by Myrna, you have not reported the incident to your barangay captain? A: I was not able to report to [the] barangay captain because he was always watching us.[28] Only recently in People v. Fernando Watimar[29] which, in turn, cited the earlier but nonetheless recent case of People v. Arthur De Leon y Lagmay @ "Joel",[30] this Court has consistently held that delay in reporting rape incidents in the face of physical violence cannot be taken against the victim. A rape victim's action is oftentimes overwhelmed by fear rather than reason. It is fear springing from the initial rape that the perpetrator hopes to build up a climate of extreme psychological terror, which would, he hopes, numb his victim to silence and submissiveness.[31] While indeed the victim may have tarried in reporting her defilement, the two-month hiatus in reporting the crime will not extricate accused-appellant from his predicament much more so vis-à-vis the Court's pointed pronouncement in People v. Conrado Cabana @ Randy[32] that - | |||||
|
2000-08-16 |
YNARES-SANTIAGO, J. |
||||
| overwhelmed by fear rather than reason. It is fear, springing from the initial rape, that the perpetrator hopes to build up a climate of extreme psychological terror, which would, he hopes, numb his victim to silence and submissiveness."[39] While indeed the complainant may have tarried in reporting her defilement, the three-year hiatus in reporting the crimes adverted to by accused-appellant will not extricate him from his predicament. This is especially so considering the Court's recent pronouncement in People v. Conrado Cabana @ Randy,[40] which states that ... The delay and initial reluctance of a rape victim to make public the assault on her virtue is neither unknown or uncommon.[41] As held in the case of People vs. Malagar:[42] | |||||
|
2000-08-15 |
PARDO, J. |
||||
| punished to avenge her honor and to condemn a grave injustice to her.[18] Accused-appellant raises the defense of denial and alibi. Denial and alibi are inherently weak defenses and, unless supported by clear and convincing evidence, the same cannot prevail over the positive declaration of the victim, who in a simple and straightforward manner, | |||||