This case has been cited 2 times or more.
|
2010-02-01 |
DEL CASTILLO, J. |
||||
| Petitioners' arguments are bereft of merit. The delay did not greatly weaken the credibility of the testimonies of the prosecution witnesses. In the light of the circumstances obtaining in the case at bar, we believe that the delay in reporting to the police authorities the attendant facts of the crime for which the petitioners have been charged is consistent with normal human behavior considering that after a tragic incident, the last thing that the bereaved would want is to provoke further reprisals from the perpetrators of the felonious act. Although there is a natural tendency to seek the ends of justice for the treacherous killing of a dearly departed, personal safety takes priority as dictated by our culture. Moreover, considering private complainant's honest belief that petitioners are known to be members of the NPA, the fear of reprisal from them was ever present which caused her momentary silence. After all, delay in reporting the occurrence of a crime or other unusual event in rural areas is well known.[9] Others reveal the perpetrator of the crime only after the lapse of one year or so to make sure that the possibility of a threat to his life or to his loved ones is already diminished if not totally avoided. In People v. Gornes[10] we held that: It is true that the charge against the appellant was initiated only three and a half years after the commission of the crime. However, the fact of delay alone does not work against the witness. | |||||
|
2004-05-27 |
SANDOVAL-GUTIERREZ, J. |
||||
| We have repeatedly held that different people react differently to a given situation or type of situation, and there is no standard form of human behavioral response where one is confronted with a strange or startling or frightful experience.[45] There is no clear cut standard form of behavior that can be drawn.[46] Witnesses are usually reluctant to volunteer information about a criminal case or are unwilling to be involved in or dragged into criminal investigations due to a variety of valid reasons.[47] One may immediately report the incident to the proper authorities, while another, in fear and/or avoiding involvement in a criminal investigation, may keep to himself what he had witnessed.[48] Others reveal the perpetrator of the crime only after the lapse of one year or so to make sure that the possibility of a threat to his life or to his loved ones is already diminished, if not totally avoided. In People vs. Gornes,[49] we held:"It is true that the charge against the appellant was initiated only three and a half years after the commission of the crime. However, the fact of delay alone does not work against the witnesses. In People vs. Rostata,[50] this Court held: | |||||