This case has been cited 10 times or more.
|
2009-01-20 |
CHICO-NAZARIO, J. |
||||
| Neither do we find merit in Mahinay's insistence that AAA's failure to report the incident immediately was tantamount to giving consent to the alleged act of Mahinay. Delay in revealing the commission of rape is not an indication of a fabricated charge. Many victims of rape never complain or file criminal charges against the rapist, for they prefer to silently bear the ignominy and pain, rather than reveal their shame to the world or risk the offender's making good his threats.[12] | |||||
|
2007-07-27 |
CARPIO MORALES, J. |
||||
| In AAA's case, the fear instilled in her by appellant that he would kill her and her kin if she reported the questioned act could explain the delay, especially given her awareness that appellant had been previously convicted and detained for killing someone. Besides, many victims of rape never complain or file criminal charges against the rapist, they preferring to silently bear the ignominy and pain, rather than reveal their shame to the world or risk the offender's making good his threats.[42] | |||||
|
2004-02-05 |
CARPIO, J. |
||||
| Appellant's main defense is alibi, which is concededly the weakest defense.[8] Courts reject alibi when there are credible eyewitnesses to the crime who can positively identify the accused.[9] Courts may give credence to alibi only if there are credible eyewitnesses who can corroborate the alibi of the accused. Courts do not give credence to alibi if the corroboration comes from close relatives of the accused, and not from credible and disinterested persons.[10] | |||||
|
2001-10-23 |
QUISUMBING, J. |
||||
| We agree with the trial court that no evidentiary weight could be given to the self-serving declarations of appellant. His ratiocination that the rapes could not have been committed in a small house where many people were living deserves scant consideration. We have held time and again that rape does not occur only in seclusion[23] and can be committed in the unlikeliest of places.[24] Situs of rape has been inside a house where there were other occupants;[25] in a room adjacent to where the victim's family was sleeping;[26] or even in a room which the victim shared with the sisters of the accused.[27] Among couples with big families who live in cramped quarters, the presence of other members of the family is not necessarily a deterrent to the commission of rape.[28] It is not impossible for the rape to take place inside a small house with no partition and with five occupants therein, including the accused and the victim.[29] Lust is no respecter of time and place.[30] The scenario illustrated by private complainants wherein they were raped inside their room by their own father is therefore not impossible nor incredible. It may seem improbable but as we held in one case: x x x | |||||
|
2000-08-31 |
DAVIDE JR., C.J. |
||||
| Geromo,[34] we held that intimidation must be viewed in light of the victim's perception and judgment at the time of the commission of the crime and not by any hard and fast rule. It is enough that the intimidation produces a fear that if the victim does not yield to the bestial demands of the accused, something would happen to her at the moment, or even thereafter, as when she is threatened with death should she report the incident. Therefore, CESAR should not be made to derive comfort from such delay, in light of the fact that HELEN was actually hampered by the fear successfully implanted on her mind by the appellant himself. Besides, no one can expect a girl, like HELEN, who was then less twelve (12) years old when she was first sexually assaulted to act like an adult or a mature and experienced woman who would have the courage and intelligence to disregard a threat to her life.[35] CESAR's attempt to discredit HELEN's morality is unfounded. The words "orgasm" and "withdrawal" were the English translation of the words in the dialect used by HELEN to describe certain acts or movements by CESAR. In any event, it has been held that the moral character of a | |||||
|
2000-04-12 |
PUNO, J. |
||||
| The delay in the filing of the cases at bar does not necessarily impair the credibility of the victim. Experience teaches us that many victims of rape never complain or file criminal charges against the rapist, for they prefer to silently bear the ignominy and pain, rather than reveal their shame to the world or risk the offender's making good on his threats.[11] In the case at bar, complainant initially preferred to conceal her dishonor and suffer in silence because her honor's violator was her father, her own flesh and blood.[12] It must be remembered that complainant was threatened by the appellant with death if she reported his dastardly act. The debilitating fear that was inculcated in her young mind, considering specially that the threat came from her father who has moral ascendancy over her, is enough to cow her into silence and submissiveness. In People vs. Melivo,[13] we said: | |||||
|
2000-02-29 |
PER CURIAM |
||||
| The fate of accused-appellant LAGARTO and CORDERO depends greatly on the credibility of Barlam as a witness. The trial court also recognized this, such that it propounded numerous clarificatory questions throughout the hearings of 3 and 4 October 1994, when Barlam was testifying on the witness stand after her psychiatric examination, just to elucidate her responses amid the sea of queries unleashed by the lawyers. It is in cases like this where we find ourselves adhering more to the principle that factual findings of the trial court must be accorded respect and even finality on appeal because the trial judge had every opportunity to question the witness, hear her testify, and observe her demeanor and deportment.[87] Exceptions to this rule exist, such as when the trial court's evaluation was arbitrarily made, or when some substantial fact or circumstance which might affect the result of the case has been overlooked, misunderstood, or misapplied, but no such peculiarity is apparent in the case at bar.[88] The trial court has "keenly observed (Barlam) during her testimony and is convinced that she is speaking the truth."[89] After poring over the voluminous records of this case and scrutinizing the assailed Decision of 31 January 1995, we see no reason to depart from this conclusion. | |||||
|
2000-02-03 |
PER CURIAM |
||||
| Our cases show that those who commit rape are no respecter of time and place. The crime of rape has been known to be committed in places ordinarily considered as unlikely. The scene of the rape is not always nor necessarily isolated or secluded.[29] Rape can be committed in places where people congregate, in parks, along the roadside, within school premises, inside an occupied house and even in a room where other members of the family are also sleeping.[30] Among couples with big families who live in cramped quarters, the presence of other members of the family is not necessarily a deterrent to the commission of this crime.[31] In this case, it is not impossible for the rape to have taken place inside a small house with no partition and with five occupants therein, including accused-appellant and Bermalyne. | |||||