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] | |||||
|
2008-12-18 |
CHICO-NAZARIO, J. |
||||
| The workings of a human mind are unpredictable; people react differently, and there is no standard form of behavior when one is confronted by a shocking incident.[45] Besides, the rule is that delay in reporting the offense of incestuous rape is not necessarily an indication that the charge is fabricated. 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, especially by one who exercises moral ascendancy over the victim.[46] | |||||
|
2008-01-28 |
TINGA, J, |
||||
| Appellant likewise challenges the credibility of AAA's averments. In his brief, he points out that the confusion in her testimony as to the exact date of the alleged rape should be taken as an ostensible badge of a fabricated charge. He also suspects that AAA, moved by no honest desire to obtain justice, was merely influenced by his parents-in-law to manufacture a rape charge against him so that they could obtain the entire money remittances of his wife from abroad. These arguments, however, are unavailing because appellant in effect would have us reassess AAA's credibility as a witness which, as we have held in countless cases, is a function that is best discharged by the trial court. Suffice it to say that when the issue focuses on the credibility of witnesses, or the lack of it, the assessment of the trial court is controlling because of its unique opportunity to observe the witness and the latter's demeanor, conduct and attitude especially during the cross-examination unless cogent reasons dictate otherwise.[56] No such compelling reason obtains in this case. | |||||