ChanRobles Virtual law Library

[ G.R. No. 134266. May 30, 2000]

PEOPLE vs. MELENCIO BALI-BALITA

EN BANC

Gentlemen:

Quoted hereunder, for your information, is a resolution of this Court dated MAY 30 2000.

G.R. No. 134266 (People of the Philippines vs. Melencio Bali-balita.)

Before us is an Urgent Manifestation with Motion to admit Affidavit of Recantation filed by the counsel for the appellant stating that she received copies of the affidavit of recantation executed by the private complainant dated October 15, 1999 on October 19, 1999 wherein the complainant stated that she lied in court about her accusation that the accused raped her on August 26, 1997. An original of the affidavit of retraction is attached to the motion. Counsel for the appellant prays that the said affidavit be admitted as part of the evidence and that it be considered by this Court in the review of the decision of the trial court. The pertinent portion of the affidavit states:

Na ako ay nagsisinungaling na nagbigay ng salaysay sa police at sa harap ni Judge Peralta. Na aking sinumpaang (sic) (salaysay) sa harap ng batas at sa poong maykapal na ako ay hindi ginahasa ni Melencio Bali-balita nuong Agosto 26, 1997;

Na noong mga panahon na iyon ako ay isang galang bata at palaging hindi pumapasok sa eskuela. Palagi akong pumupunta sa tambakan ng basura sa Payatas kasama ang mga galang bata sa amin lugar. Sa katunayan palagi ako pinapagalitan ng aking nanay dahil sa ako ay palaging wala sa bahay at hindi pumapasok sa eskuela;

Na ako ay nagsumbong sa aking Ate Miriam na ako ay ginahasa ni Melencio Bali-balita para hindi mapagalitan ng aking nanay dahil nuon pinagbantaan na ako ng aking nanay na kung palagi ako sa layasan ako ay papalayasin sa bahay. Ang aking ate naman na walang sabi-sabi dinala agad ako sa police at nagsumbong. Nuong malaman ng DSWD dinala agad ako sa Crame para ipa-examin at magsampa ng kaukulang habla;

Na ako ay dinala sa alabang ng DSWD at duon tinago sa aking nanay at hindi pinakausap. Na kahit na sinabi ko at ng aking Ate Miriam na hindi ako ginahasa ni Melencio Bali-Baliata ako ay tinakot na hindi na raw ako tutulungan kung mayroon mangyayari sa akin sa mga susunod na araw. Na dahil nga sa mura kong pag-iisip ako ay sumunod na lamang sa mga sinasabi sa akin ng mga taga DSWD."

The Solicitor-General filed opposition to the motion on the ground that affidavits of recantation are as a rule not looked upon with favor and that the retraction given long after the judgment of conviction was rendered deserves even lesser consideration as it may have been impelled by improper motives other than to tell the truth.

The opposition filed by the Solicitor-General is impressed with merit.

In the case of Molina vs. People1July 24, 1996. this Court held that affidavits of recantation executed after the judgment of conviction was rendered are extremely unreliable and are often held inadmissible as hearsay evidence. The testimony given by a witness under oath cannot be lightly taken and it is most unlikely for a witness to undergo the burdensome process of participating in the trial of the case only to recant at a later date for no compelling reason. The same is true in the case before us, since there appears to be no cogent nor credible reason for the private complainant who went through the tedious process of filing a complaint with the police, the investigation proper, the medical examination and the court hearings only to recant later that the crime charged was never committed. The complainant, a minor, was brought to the police by her elder sister sometime in August 1996 and the trial of the case went on until late September 1997. Within that period the complainant had all the opportunity to tell the court that the rape never happened but instead she testified under oath that she was in fact raped by the accused. It was only in October 1999 when all the pleadings were filed before this Court and the case submitted for decision that the complainant filed an affidavit of recantation with no rational or plausible explanation for her delay in withdrawing the accusation. Her proffered explanation for the delay i.e., that from the beginning of the proceedings she had admitted to her sister and to the person from DSWD that the rape did not happen but the latter threatened the complainant that she can no longer avail of DSWD assistance should anything happen to her in the future is not believable considering that she had ample opportunity to tell the authorities, and specially, the trial court that she was not raped by the accused. This court finds her recantation unworthy of belief. The complainant was still a minor, thirteen years old, at the time of execution of the affidavit of recantation; the veracity of her recantation is open to doubt. She may have been easily swayed by the moral ascendancy of her elders or of monetary reward. This court has held in a number of cases that a recantation may be easily procured by the accused from indigent or ignorant witnesses/ complainant through intimidation or monetary remuneration.2People vs. Soria, 262 SCRA 739; Alonte vs. Savellano, 287 SCRA 245; People vs. Navarro, 297 SCRA 331. A danger noted by this Court in admitting affidavits of recantation after the judgment of conviction is rendered is that it may be later repudiated leaving the proceeding with no final resolution.3 Ibid.

WHEREFORE, the motion to admit the affidavit of recantation filed by counsel for the defense is denied.

Davide, Jr., C.J., is abroad on official business. Panganiban, Quisumbing, Ynares-Santiago, de Leon, Jr., JJ., are on leave.

Very truly yours,

LUZVIMINDA D. PUNO

Clerk of Court

(Sgd.) MA. LUISA D. VILLARAMA

Asst. Clerk of Court

Back to Home | Back to Main

CLICK HERE FOR THE LATEST SUPREME COURT JURISPRUDENCE