As the Court ruled in People v. Montes:
As admitted by appellant, the alleged Affidavit of Desistance of the
victim was never identified by her, but submitted in court only after the
institution of the rape cases. Such being the case, the Affidavit --
even when construed as a pardon in the erstwhile private crime of rape -- is
not a ground for the dismissal of the criminal cases, since the actions have
already been instituted. To justify the dismissal of the Complaints,
the pardon should have been made prior to the institution of the criminal actions.
(Emphasis supplied.)
In People v. Ramirez, Jr., the
Court was even more circumspect:
As a rule, a recantation or an affidavit of desistance is viewed with
suspicion and reservation. Jurisprudence has invariably regarded such
affidavit as exceedingly unreliable, because it can easily be secured from a
poor and ignorant witness, usually through intimidation or for monetary
consideration. Moreover, there is always the probability that it would later on
be repudiated, and criminal prosecution would thus be interminable.
Indeed, the Affidavit of Desistance of private complainant is highly
suspect. Apparently, she executed it on the basis of a consideration of
P5,000, which was later increased to P100,000. After her testimony had
been rendered, however, appellant refused to pay the amount agreed upon,
thereby prompting her to recant the Affidavit.
She had stated therein that the accused is indeed innocent of the crimes
charge[d] since in truth, he never molested me sexually as charged. Such
statement was a mere legal conclusion, bereft of any details or other indicia
of credibility, much less truth. More likely, it emanated not from this
young girls mouth, but from a trained legal mind. Moreover, while she
affirmed her Affidavit on the stand, she also declared, on clarificatory
question from the judge, that she was 14 years old when she was molested and
raped by appellant. These facts raise doubts as to the reliability of her
statements in her Affidavit.
At this point, we reiterate that, by itself, an affidavit of desistance
or pardon is not a ground for the dismissal of an action, once it has been
instituted in court. In the present case, private complainant lost the
right or absolute privilege to decide whether the rape charge should proceed, because
the case had already reached and must therefore continue to be heard by the
court a quo.
Please visit my youtube account:
No comments:
Post a Comment