This case has been cited 3 times or more.
|
2013-06-03 |
BRION, J. |
||||
| We are not persuaded. "AAA's" momentary inaction will neither diminish nor affect her credibility. "The filing of complaints of rape months, even years, after their commission may or may not dent the credibility of witness and of testimony, depending on the circumstances attendant thereto."[19] "It does not diminish the complainant's credibility or undermine the charges of rape when the delay can be attributed to the pattern of fear instilled by the threats of bodily harm, specially by one who exercises moral ascendancy over the victim."[20] In this case, not long after the initial rape, appellant threatened "AAA" that he would kill her and her mother if ever she would tell anyone about what happened. At that time, "AAA" was only 11 years old and was living under the same roof with the latter whom she treated as a father. Obviously, the threat "AAA" received from appellant, coupled with his moral ascendancy, is enough to cow and intimidate "AAA." Being young and inexperienced, it instilled tremendous fear in her mind. In People v. Domingo,[21] we ruled that the effect of fear and intimidation instilled in the victim's mind cannot be measured against any given hard-and-fast rule such that it is viewed in the context of the victim's perception and judgment not only at the time of the commission of the crime but also at the time immediately thereafter. In any event, "the failure of the victim to immediately report the rape is not necessarily an indication of a fabricated charge."[22] | |||||
|
2008-04-23 |
CARPIO MORALES, J. |
||||
| AAA's delay in reporting the incident does not affect her credibility as well. The filing of complaints for rape months and even years after their commission may or may not dent the credibility of witness and of testimony, depending on the attending circumstances. [30] In the present cases, the threats that the young AAA received from appellant and his co- accused were enough to cow and intimidate her. Moreover, as the appellate court noted, her experience when she confided her harrowing ordeal taught her that revealing it "could drive away people who may not understand what she had gone through." | |||||
|
2007-09-27 |
CARPIO, J. |
||||
| Appellant's alibi that he slept at Samuel's house in the evening of 31 March 2003 cannot prevail over the positive and categorical testimonies of AAA and Anilyn. Samuel's testimony that he asked appellant to sleep at his house on 31 March 2003 and that he saw appellant in his house the following morning does not prove that appellant indeed stayed at his house all throughout the night of 31 March 2003. Besides, for alibi to prosper, it must be shown that it was physically impossible for appellant to have been at the crime scene at the time of the incident.[5] As found by the trial court, it was not impossible for appellant to go to Anilyn's house, which is about 200-300 meters away from Samuel's house. | |||||