This case has been cited 2 times or more.
|
2014-02-12 |
PEREZ, J. |
||||
| The testimony of the offended party in crimes against chastity should not be received with precipitate credulity for the charge can easily be concocted.[34] Courts should be wary of giving undue credibility to a claim of rape, especially where the sole evidence comes from an alleged victim whose charge is not corroborated and whose conduct during and after the rape is open to conflicting interpretations.[35] While judges ought to be cognizant of the anguish and humiliation that a rape victim undergoes as she seeks justice, they should equally bear in mind that their responsibility is to render justice based on the law.[36] | |||||
|
2002-07-18 |
QUISUMBING, J. |
||||
| victim herself who pointed to the suspect as the assailant at the time of the arrest.[33] In our view, the arrest of appellants done immediately after the incident was valid for it was made by the arresting officers after the victims of the robbery pointed to appellants as the malefactors. Accordingly, the search and seizure that ensued are valid as incidental to a lawful arrest.[34] However, appellants seek to nullify the seizure of the objects allegedly taken from their possession. They claim they do not constitute admissible evidence as they were not duly receipted nor properly identified at the time they were taken. | |||||