This case has been cited 3 times or more.
|
2013-12-11 |
LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, J. |
||||
| With respect to AAA's actions immediately following the rape incident at issue as well as her delay in reporting the crime which appellant both characterized as indicative of the falsity of her accusation, we observe that such arguments are not novel in rape cases and have been shot down repeatedly by our pronouncements in jurisprudence. In People v. Buado, Jr.,[20] we dealt with these twin issues in this manner:Verily, there has never been any uniformity or consistency of behavior to be expected from those who had the misfortune of being sexually molested. The Court has pointed out that some of them have found the courage early on to publicly denounce the abuses they experienced, but that there were others who have opted to initially keep their harrowing ordeals to themselves and to just move on with their lives as if nothing had happened, until the limits of their tolerance were reached. AAA belonged to the latter group of victims, as her honest declarations to the trial court revealed. Also, we cannot expect from the immature and inexperienced AAA to measure up to the same standard of conduct and reaction that we would expect from adults whose maturity in age and experience could have brought them to stand up more quickly to their interest. Lastly, long silence and delay in reporting the crime of rape to the proper authorities have not always been considered as an indication of a false accusation. (Citations omitted.) | |||||
|
2013-11-27 |
LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, J. |
||||
| It is settled in jurisprudence that in reviewing rape convictions, we are guided by three principles, namely (a) that an accusation of rape can be made with facility; it is difficult for the complainant to prove but more difficult for the accused, though innocent, to disprove; (b) that in view of the intrinsic nature of the crime of rape as involving two persons, the rapist and the victim, the testimony of the complainant must be scrutinized with extreme caution; and (c) that the evidence for the prosecution must stand or fall on its own merits, and cannot be allowed to draw strength from the weakness of the evidence for the defense.[11] | |||||
|
2013-11-25 |
BRION, J. |
||||
| In People v. Buado, Jr.,[9] the Court reiterated the guidelines in appreciating the victim's "age," either as an element of the crime or as a qualifying circumstance, thus: In order to remove any confusion that may be engendered by the foregoing cases, we hereby set the following guidelines in appreciating age, either as an element of the crime or as a qualifying circumstance. | |||||