This case has been cited 6 times or more.
|
2001-11-20 |
QUISUMBING, J. |
||||
| Cecilia's fear is a viable reason for her long silence. This should not be taken against her. It is fear, springing from the initial rape, from which the perpetrator hopes to build up a climate of extreme psychological terror, which would numb his victim to silence and submissiveness.[22] And even if delay could not be attributed to death threats and intimidation, the failure of complainant in promptly reporting the offense to the proper authorities would not destroy the truth per se of the complaint.[23] | |||||
|
2001-04-17 |
PANGANIBAN, J. |
||||
| This alleged inconsistency pertains to a very trivial matter which does not in any way affect the disposition of the case. It has been held that inconsistencies referring only to minor details do not weaken the credibility of witnesses. On the contrary, these inconsistencies are signs that the witnesses were not rehearsed.[19] | |||||
|
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 - | |||||
|
2000-08-25 |
PARDO, J. |
||||
| Furthermore, for alibi to prosper as a defense, the accused-appellant must move not only that he was not at the scene of the crime, he must also prove the physical impossibility of being there.[13] Accused-appellant's farm, where he claimed he | |||||
|
2000-08-16 |
YNARES-SANTIAGO, J. |
||||
| As aptly stated in People v. Arthur De Leon y Lagmay @ "Joel":[38] "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 | |||||