This case has been cited 3 times or more.
|
2012-02-01 |
PEREZ, J. |
||||
| The credibility of a witness, however, is not impaired if the delay in making a criminal accusation has been satisfactory explained.[24] In the instant case such delay is understandable. AAA was afraid of appellant's threats.[25] Since individuals react differently to emotional stress, no standard form of behavior can be expected of them after they have been raped.[26] | |||||
|
2008-10-17 |
VELASCO JR., J. |
||||
| In contrast, the prosecution witness, Reyes, stated that accused-appellant suddenly attacked the victim. Reyes was able to present a convincing and straightforward account of the incident, particularly the identity of accused-appellant and the suddenness of the attack on the victim. Accused-appellant failed to impeach Reyes' testimony and there was no ill motive imputed against the latter. The trial court was thus correct in believing Reyes' account of the incident. Such finding of fact of the trial court is accorded great weight and respect and will not be disturbed on appeal.[13] Since accused-appellant failed to prove that there was unlawful aggression on the part of the victim, the claim of self-defense cannot prosper. | |||||
|
2007-07-27 |
CARPIO MORALES, J. |
||||
| As for AAA's delay of almost six months in reporting the incident to the authorities, People v. Francisco,[38] People v. Marcelo[39] and People v. Bayani[40] enlighten. In these cases, this Court declared that a six-month delay in reporting the rape to the authorities does not impair the credibility of the private complainant or indicate a fabricated charge if satisfactorily explained.[41] | |||||