Recantations. – “Recantations are viewed unfavorably especially in rape cases. Circumstances in which the recantation was made are thoroughly examined before the evidence of recantation can be given great weight.”[1]
When an affidavit of recantation was executed fifteen days after conviction, it can be viewed as a mere afterthought and unreliable, coupled with the fact that the signatures in the affidavit of desistance and the victim’s Sinumpaang Salaysay and consent for medical examination are different, the authenticity of the same is doubtful, and the lower courts were correct in not giving it credence.[2]
“As a rule, courts view unfavorably affidavits of desistance or a recantation of a victim’s testimony, especially in rape cases, since “they can be easily obtained for monetary consideration or through intimidation.”[3]
The passage of five long years from the time a victim testified to the time she recanted her testimony, coupled with the fact that she allowed herself to be subjected to a medical examination and grueling hours of direct and cross examination in the trial renders a victim’s affidavit of desistance suspect.[4]
“Rape is no longer considered a private crime as R.A. No. 8353 or the Anti-Rapre Law of 1997 has reclassified rape as a crime against persons. Rape may now be prosecuted de officio; a complaint for commenced by the offended party is no longer necessary for its prosecution. Hence, an affidavit of desistance which may be considered as pardon by the complaining witness is not by itself a ground for the dismissal of a rape action over which the court has already assumed jurisdiction.”[5] (Citations omitted)
An affidavit of desistance executed out of sheer commiseration for her siblings, can hardly affect the established fact that accused-appellant sexually abused the private complainant.[6]
[1] People v. ZZZ, G.R. No. 229862, June 19, 2019; People v. XXX, G.R. No.218277, November 9, 2020
[2] People v. XXX, G.R. No. 239906, August 26, 2020
[3] People v. XXX, G.R. No. 225781, November 16, 2020
[4] People v. XXX, G.R. No. 225781, November 16, 2020
[5] People v. Bagsic, 822 Phil. 784 (2017), cited in People v. Padin, G.R. No. 250418, December 9, 2020
[6] People v. Padin, G.R. No. 250418, December 9, 2020