People v. Buenvinoto, G.R. No.

207990, June 9, 2014

As to AAA' s delay in reporting the rape incidents to the authorities, the Court finds no
reason to rule that this omission puts a dent on the credibility of her testimony.

Delay in revealing the commission of a crime such as rape does not necessarily render
such charge unworthy of belief. This is because the victim may choose to keep quiet
rather than expose her defilement to the harsh glare of public scrutiny. Only when
the delay is unreasonable or unexplained may it work to discredit the complainant.

People v. Accion, G.R. No. 122550-51, August 11, 1999

The fact that it took Maricris and her mother more than a year before reporting the rape
incidents to the authorities does not destroy the case against accused-appellant. Being
only fourteen (14) years old when Maricris was sexually violated, she was
understandably cowed into silence as accused-appellant repeatedly warned her not to
divulge the incidents to anybody, otherwise she would be killed. 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. It was also understandable for Maricris not to immediately report the
rape as Filipino women are known to be affectedly shy and coy, and rape stigmatizes
the victim, not the perpetrator.

The Court cannot consider Maricris' charges of rape as purely fabricated or maliciously
motivated. A young girl's revelation that she has been raped, coupled with her
voluntary submission to medical examination and willingness to undergo public trial
where she could be compelled to give out details of an assault on her dignity, cannot be
easily dismissed as mere concoction. For, it is difficult to imagine that she would
undergo the indignities and hardships concomitant to a prosecution for rape unless
motivated by a desire to have the offender apprehended and punished. Moreover, no
mother would sacrifice her own daughter, a child of tender years at that, and subject
her to the rigors and humiliation of a public trial for rape if she were not motivated by
an honest desire to have her daughter's transgressor punished accordingly.

People v. Julian, G.R. Nos. 113692-93, April 4, 1997

Delay in prosecuting the offense is not an indication of a fabricated charge. Many
victims of rape never complain or file criminal charges against the rapists. They
prefer to bear the ignominy and pain, rather than reveal their shame to the world or
risk the offenders' making good their threats to kill or hurt their victims." This is
"understandable as Filipino women are known to be affectedly shy and coy. Rape
stigmatizes the victim, not the perpetrator. It is sad reality that a non-virgin who has
been deflowered against her will is nonetheless treated with scorn by society." In the
final analysis, what is important is that both Nelia Agtarap and Angeles Alonzo
revealed they had been raped when they filed their sworn complaint with the Laoag
Police. Consequently, Nelia's delay in filing the complaint does not in any way affect
her credibility.

People v. Lucas, G.R. No 80102, January 22, 1990

Appellant would argue further that "[t]he unexplained silence of complainant for six (6)
months despite her allegations of several rapes committed against her (even before
September 1985) renders doubtful the truth of her charge," claiming that "such silence
on her part could be construed as an implied condonation of what her father had done
to her" . Again, the contention is unmeritorious. It has repeatedly been held that the
delay in reporting a rape incident due to death threats, as in this case, can not be taken
against the victim [People v. Valdez, G.R. No. 51034, May 29, 1987, 150 SCRA 405;
People v. Ibal, G.R. Nos. 66010-12, July 31, 1986, 143 SCRA 317] nor can the fact of delay
alone be taken as implied consent [People v. Seculles, G.R. No. 52348, October 23, 1984,
132 SCRA 653]. This Court had occasion to note that "it is not uncommon for young
girls to conceal for sometime the assaults on their virtue because of the rapists' threat on
their lives" [People v. Oydoc, G.R. No. 61679, October 26, 1983, 125 SCRA 250]. It should
be borne in mind that this case involves a victim of tender age and limited schooling
(Grade V) whose actions under such difficult and trying circumstances are dominated
more by fear than by reason. She cannot be expected to have such exceptional courage
as to disregard a threat on her life [People v. Cruz, G.R. No. 71462, June 30, 1987, 151
SCRA 609; People v. Valdez, supra; People v. Ibal, supra], especially where her
aggressor was her own father. The fact that the victim was finally able to muster
enough courage to report the incident is, in fact, commendable.

People v. Mingming, G.R. No. 174195, December 10, 2008

First, Catalino attacks AAA's testimony for her delay in reporting the rape. This
imputed delay, however, can only refer to the rape that occurred in May 1998; she
reported the rapes of June 29, 1998 on the same day they were committed. In any case,
we do not believe that delay in reporting a rape should directly and immediately
translate to the conclusion that the reported rape did not take place; there can be no
hard and fast rule to determine when a delay in reporting a rape can have the effect
of affecting the victim's credibility. The heavy psychological and social toll alone that
a rape accusation exacts on the rape victim already speaks against the view that a
delay puts the veracity of a charge of rape in doubt. The effects of threats and the fear
that they induce must also be factored in. At least one study shows that the decisive
factor for non-reporting and the failure to prosecute a rape is the lack of support —
familial, institutional and societal — for the rape victim, given the unfavorable socio-
cultural and policy environment. All these, to our mind, speak for themselves in
negating the conclusion that a delay in reporting a rape is per se sufficient basis to
disbelieve an allegation of rape. The more reasonable approach is to take the delay
into account but to disregard it if there are justifiable explanations for the victim's
prolonged silence.

People v. Cabungan, G.R. No. 189355, January 23, 2013

Indeed, there was no prompt revelation of what befell "AAA." But this is not enough
reason to discredit her. A delay in reporting a rape case for two months or longer, as in
this case, cannot be taken against the rape victim. "Long silence and delay in reporting
the crime of rape have not always been construed as indications of a false accusation."
"A rape charge becomes doubtful only when the delay or inaction in revealing its
commission is unreasonable and unexplained." In People v. Domingo, we held that "it is
not uncommon that a rape victim conceal for some time the assault against her person
on account of fear of the threats posed by her assailant." This is exactly the situation in
this case. "AAA’s" delay in filing the Complaint is not without a valid reason. She was
cowed by appellant’s threats which hindered her from immediately reporting her
painful ordeal to the authorities.

People v. Brioso, G.R. No 209344, June 27, 2016

The Court is neither persuaded by accused-appellant's argument that AAA's

unexplained delay of five (5) days in reporting the rape to her mother greatly affects her
credibility. This Court has repeatedly held that delay in reporting rape incidents, in the
face of threats of physical violence, cannot be taken against the victim. AAA's delay in
reporting the incidents to her mother or the proper authorities is insignificant and does
not affect the veracity of her charges. It should be remembered that accused-appellant
threatened to kill her if she told anyone of the incident. This Court has explained why a
rape victim's deferral in reporting the crime does not equate to falsification of the
accusation, to wit:

The failure of complainant to disclose her defilement without loss of time

to persons close to her or to report the matter to the authorities does not perforce
warrant the conclusion that she was not sexually molested and that her charges
against the accused are all baseless, untrue and fabricated. Delay in prosecuting
the offense is not an indication of a fabricated charge. Many victims of rape never
complain or file criminal charges against the rapists. They prefer to bear the
ignominy and pain rather than reveal their shame to the world or risk the
offenders' making good their threats to kill or hurt their victims.

Further, it has been written that a rape victim's actions are oftentimes overwhelmed by
fear rather than by reason. It is this fear, springing from the initial rape, that the
perpetrator hopes to build a climate of extreme psychological terror, which would, he
hopes, numb his victim into silence and submissiveness. Moreover, delay in reporting
an incident of rape is not an indication of a fabricated charge and does not necessarily
cast doubt on the credibility of the complainant.31 It is likewise settled in jurisprudence
that human reactions vary and are unpredictable when facing a shocking and horrifying
experience such as sexual assault, thus, not all rape victims can be expected to act
conformably to the usual expectations of everyone.32 In the instant case, AAA, being
only four (4) years old at the time that she was violated and threatened with death if she
reports the incident, would naturally be cowed into silence because of fear for her life.

People v. Madia, G.R. No. 130524, June 20, 2001

Not all rape victims can be expected to act conformably to the usual expectations of
everyone. Different and varying degrees of behavioral responses is expected in the
proximity of, or in confronting, an aberrant episode. It is well settled that, "different
people react differently to a given situation or type of situation and there is no standard
form of human behavioral response when one is confronted with a strange, startling or
frightful experience." In fact, it is quite understandable for a victim not to immediately
report the rape as Filipino women are known to be affectedly shy and coy, and rape
stigmatizes the victim rather than the perpetrator. In the case at bar, the victim — a
naive ten (10) year old — could not possibly possess the discernment to take the proper
course of action. The delay will not be taken against her for, unlike a mature woman, a
rape victim of tender years will not have the same courage and intelligence to
immediately report the sexual assault. Besides, the records also reveal that the victim's
failure to report the sexual assaults to her mother was due to appellant's threats of
bodily harm.

People v. Alpe, G.R. No. 132133, November 29, 2001

Well-settled is the rule that delay in reporting the offense of incestuous rape is not an
indication that the charge is fabricated. Neither does it cast doubt on the credibility of
the complainant, as it is not uncommon for young girls to conceal for sometime the
assault on their virtue because of the rapist's threat on their lives. In this case, appellant
consistently intimidated Mary Joy by threatening to kill her and the other members of
the family if she revealed the rape committed against her. She satisfactorily explained
that she did not immediately report the rape incidents, because she was afraid of the
threats made by appellant. "Delay in reporting a rape incident neither diminishes
complainant's credibility nor undermines the charges of rape where the delay can be
attributed to the pattern of fear instilled by the threats of bodily harm, specially by one
who exercised moral ascendancy over the victim."

People v. Montefalcon, G.R. Nos. 116741-43, March 25, 1999

Well-settled is the rule that delay in reporting an incident of rape does not create any
doubt over the credibility of the complainant nor can it be taken against her. "Finally,
the fact that Fanny Dolor filed her complaint more than six months after the occurrence
of the rape is not a matter that would discredit her charge. Delay in reporting an
incident of rape is not an indication of fabricated charge nor does it cast doubt on the
credibility of the complainant as it is not uncommon for young girls to conceal for
sometime the assault on their virtue because of the rapist's threat on their lives." (People
vs. Pamor, 237 SCRA 462) "On the other hand, this court has repeatedly held that delay
in reporting a rape incident due to death threats should not be taken against the victim.
This doctrine applies with greater force to the case at bench, where complaint was only
fourteen (14) years of age at the time of the assaults, while accused-appellant was
sixteen (16) years her senior and an armed member of the dreaded Alsa Masa
movement. The threat to her life and her family was real; her fear was reasonable."
(People vs. Sarellana, 233 SCRA 31) Indeed, the rape perpetrated by Edwin Montefalcon
against Sharon Saing has been sufficiently substantiated. Appellant utterly failed to
show his innocence of the charges. The inconsistencies is the testimonies of the
witnesses for the prosecution alluded to by the defense are too minor and
inconsequential. The failure of the victim, Sharon Saing, to report her unfortunate
experience is understandable, in the face of the threat of the rapist to end her life should
she disclose her misfortune. Anyway, in statutory rape, such as the one sued upon, even
with the consent of the victim, carnal knowledge of her is punishable as statutory rape.

People v. Aguero, G.R. No. 139410, September 20, 2001

As to the alleged two-year delay in the filing of the complaint, suffice it to say, that
complainant's failure to promptly report the incident does not sufficiently detract from
her credibility and cannot be taken against her. It has been held that a rape victim's
delay or hesitation in reporting the crime does not destroy the truth of the complaint
and is not an indication of deceit as it is common for a rape victim to prefer silence for
fear of her aggressor and the lack of courage to face the public stigma of having been
sexually abused. That complainant reported the incident only after the lapse of two
years is reasonably explained by the fact that accused-appellant threatened to kill
complainant as well as her grandparents and was living with them. In the case of
People vs. Coloma, even a delay of eight (8) years was not taken against the
complainant and failed to convince the Court that the charge was merely fabricated.
Thus, in the absence of other circumstances which show that the charge was a mere
concoction, impelled by some motive, delay in the filing of the complainant is not
sufficient to defeat the charge.

People v. Laciste, G.R. Nos. 135853-54, November 22, 2001

The delay in reporting the crime to the authorities cannot alter the results of the case.
The Court has often ruled that delay in the filing of the criminal complaint does not
necessarily impair the credibility of the witness particularly, indeed, when the offender
exercises moral ascendancy over the victim. The hesitation of a rape victim in reporting
the crime is quite common. Rape victims not infrequently would prefer silence than not
because of either fear of their aggressors or of lack of courage to face the public stigma
of having been sexually abused.
People v. Awing, G.R. Nos. 133919-20, February 19, 2001

Delay does not necessarily impair the victim's credibility. Experience teaches us that
many victims of rape never complain or file criminal charges against the rapist,
preferring instead to bear the pain and ignominy in silence, rather than unveil their
shame to the world or risk the offender making good on his threats. As long as the
delay or vacillation is adequately explained, said delay does not necessarily undermine
the complaining witness' credibility. Among reasons we have considered sufficient to
explain delay are fear of reprisal, social humiliation, familial considerations, and
economic reasons. In the present cases, recall that private complainant had been
threatened into silence for fear of possible harm to herself and to her family. Her reason
for the eleven months' delay in reporting her ravishment is adequate. Said delay does
not make her credibility suspect