This case has been cited 4 times or more.
|
2014-06-11 |
LEONEN, J. |
||||
| We also disagree with accused-appellant's argument that private complainant AAA's delay in reporting the alleged rape incidents, together with the prodding of AAA's grandmother, signals the falsity of the rape allegations. In People v. Delos Reyes,[59] this court ruled that:The failure to immediately report the dastardly acts to her family or to the authorities at the soonest possible time or her failure to immediately change her clothes is not enough reason to cast reasonable doubt on the guilt of [accused]. This Court has repeatedly held that delay in reporting rape incidents, in the face of threats of physical violence, cannot be taken against the victim. Further, it has been written that a rape victim's actions are oftentimes overwhelmed by fear rather than by reason. It is this fear, springing from the initial rape, that the perpetrator hopes to build a climate of extreme psychological terror, which would, he hopes, numb his victim into silence and submissiveness.[60] | |||||
|
2013-09-18 |
REYES, J. |
||||
| AAA's failure to seek help as soon as she saw other people in Tabunok cannot be taken against her. This Court has recognized that a rape victim's actions are oftentimes overwhelmed by fear rather than by reason.[29] AAA was also able to explain herself on this matter. Her testimony was aptly summarized by the RTC, thus:She did not know the places that they had passed by. She did not shout because she was afraid considering that something had already happened to her. She was looking for an opportunity that she could see somebody whom she could trust and tell what happened to her. x x x [W]hat matters most to her at that time was that she was alive and she was thinking of the possibility that there would be somebody whom she could confide and tell everything that had happened to her. She did not dare ask the woman who was tending the store to call the police or the barangay tanod because she noticed that Joey Bacatan and that woman were close to each other.[30] | |||||
|
2013-06-05 |
PEREZ, J. |
||||
| The Court has held that although there may be inconsistencies in the testimonies of witnesses on minor details, they do not impair their credibility where there is consistency in relating the principal occurrence and positive identification of the assailant.[23] | |||||
|
2012-10-16 |
PERLAS-BERNABE, J. |
||||
| Val was tried anew before the RTC, which, in its Joint Decision[9] dated June 28, 2005, eventually convicted him for three (3) counts of rape and sentenced him to suffer the death penalty as well as to pay private complainant P50,000.00 as damages for each count. He appealed his conviction to the Court of Appeals (CA), docketed as CA-G.R. CR-H.C. No. 01642 which in its December 19, 2006 Decision,[10] affirmed his conviction, with the modification reducing the penalty of death to reclusion perpetua for each count, and ordering the payment of the amount of P50,000.00 by way of moral damages to the victim. Val's motion for reconsideration was likewise denied,[11] hence, hisseparate appeal before the Court, docketed as G.R. No. 177357, pending before the Court's Third Division. With the foregoing factual backdrop, only appellant's appeal is left before the Court En Banc for resolution. | |||||