This case has been cited 3 times or more.
|
2015-02-04 |
PEREZ, J. |
||||
| First. The mere fact that AAA did not tell her parents about what happened to her immediately after the first incident on 10 August 2003 does not discredit her accusations of rape and sexual molestation against the appellant. Delay or vacillation in making a criminal accusation does not necessarily impair the credibility of witnesses if such delay is satisfactorily explained.[34] In this connection, fear of reprisal, social humiliation, familial considerations, and economic reasons have all been considered by this Court as sufficient explanations for such delay.[35] | |||||
|
2011-04-06 |
LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, J. |
||||
| As to how CCC came to know of her daughter AAA's rape is immaterial. The fact still remains that AAA was sexually abused by accused-appellant and AAA's delay in disclosing her sexual defilement to CCC is understandable. As AAA testified, after every rape, she was threatened by accused-appellant not to report the same to anyone, otherwise, accused-appellant would kill AAA and her mother. We have declared in a number of cases that delay or vacillation in making a criminal accusation does not necessarily impair the credibility of witnesses if such delay is satisfactorily explained. Fear of reprisal, social humiliation, familial considerations, and economic reasons have been considered as sufficient explanations.[41] | |||||
|
2003-03-26 |
PER CURIAM |
||||
| Well-settled is the rule that a conviction for rape may be made even on the testimony of the victim herself, as long as such testimony is credible.[10] In fact, the testimony of the victim is the most important factor to prove that the felony has been committed. This is primarily because the crime of rape is usually committed in a private place where only the aggressor and the rape victim are present.[11] | |||||