3 People Vs Garcia

11/28/2018 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 288
382 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

People vs. Garcia
*
G.R. Nos. 120387-88. March 31, 1998.
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs.

EDUARDO GARCIA y DULAY, accused-appellant.
Evidence; Affidavits; Affidavits of Desistance; The credibility

of trials and the pursuit of truth cannot be placed at the unilateral
disposal of timorous witnesses or made dependent on one-sided
statements prepared by notaries.—Affidavits of desistance,
especially those extracted from poor, unlettered, young and
gullible witnesses long after the trial is over, are generally
frowned upon. Testimony solemnly given before a court of justice
and subjected to the test of cross-examination cannot just be set
aside, and a new trial granted on the basis of perfunctory and pro
forma affidavits that obviously were not prepared directly by the
witnesses themselves but by some legally trained individuals. The
credibility of trials and the pursuit of truth cannot be placed at
the unilateral disposal of timorous witnesses or made dependent
one one-sided statements prepared by notaries.
Criminal Law; Rape; The offended party, even if she were a
minor, has the right to initiate the prosecution of rape
independently of her parents, grandparents or guardians, unless
she is incompetent or incapable of doing so upon grounds other
than her minority.—Complainant Joylyn Garcia may have been
mentally distressed, but
____________________________
* FIRST DIVISION.
383
VOL. 288, MARCH 31, 1998 383
People vs. Garcia

http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000016757fdb9a6d5fdad86003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 1/23
she was not proven to be legally incapacitated. In the presence of

PO3 Fidel Geronimo, she was able to personally sign her Salaysay
or affidavit showing her ravishment. In said Salaysay, she
answered the police officer’s questions on why she was there,
stating that she was raped by her own father. It was only
thereafter that she was assisted by Rowena Garcia, her sister, in
narrating how the rape was committed. At any rate, a person is
presumed to be in control of his or her faculties. Whoever alleges
otherwise has the burden of proof. Aside from his bare allegations,
appellant presented no convincing evidence that complainant was
legally incapacitated by reason of her mental state when she filed
her complaint. Accordingly, it becomes immaterial that only her
aunt and elder sister, who were not her guardians, assisted her.
Section 5, Rule 110 of the Rules of Court, clearly provides that she
could have filed the complaint on her own, viz.: “x x x The
offended party, even if she were a minor, has the right to initiate
the prosecution for the above offenses, independently of her
parents, grandparents or guardians, unless she is incompetent or
incapable of doing so upon grounds other than her minority. x x x”
Same; Same; When an alleged victim of rape says that she
was violated, she says in effect all that is necessary to show that
the rape has been inflicted on her and so long as her testimony
meets the test of credibility, the accused may be convicted on the
basis thereof.—The foregoing testimony, by itself, is sufficient to
overcome the presumption of innocence. Indeed, “when an alleged
victim of rape says that she was violated, she says in effect all
that is necessary to show that the rape has been inflicted on her
and so long as her testimony meets the test of credibility, the
accused may be convicted on the basis thereof.” Moreover, the
trial court itself gave full credence to the said testimony. Well-
settled is the rule that the trial court’s assessment of the
credibility of witnesses is conclusive and binding on appellate
courts. We find no reason to disregard the trial court’s evaluation
of young Joylyn’s testimony.
Same; Same; Public Prosecutors; The prosecution’s duty is to
prove that the accused committed the crime, not to explain a
circumstance of insignificant relevance.—We also find pointless
appellant’s insistence that, in view of the testimony of his wife
that she and her husband usually left and returned home
together, the victim should have explained why she was alone
with him during the alleged rape. Such explanation is immaterial.
The prosecution’s duty is to prove
384

People vs. Garcia
that the accused committed the crime, not to explain a

circumstance of insignificant relevance. As earlier observed, the
prosecution successfully discharged this burden.
Same; Same; Hymenal laceration is not an element of rape—it
is sufficient that there was sexual congress, and that this was
consummated by the slightest introduction of the male organ into
the labia of pudendum.—Likewise, we cannot sustain appellant’s
argument that the physical evidence did not support the alleged
rape. The medical expert for the prosecution testified that there
were hymenal lacerations. Although this was rebutted by Dr.
Poblete who appeared for the defense, it must be emphasized that
hymenal laceration is not an element of rape. It is sufficient that
there was sexual congress, and that this was consummated by the
slightest introduction of the male organ into the labia of the
pudendum.
Same; Witnesses; New Trial; Affidavits; Affidavits of
Recantation; A recantation, as a general rule, is not sufficient to
warrant a new trial.—When confronted with an affidavit of
recantation, courts are called upon to weigh countervailing values
in our legal and judicial system. A recantation, as a general rule,
is not sufficient to warrant a new trial. If it were otherwise, a new
trial would be granted whenever an interested party succeeds in
intimidating or inducing any or some of the witnesses to retract
after trial their testimony, thus, opening the door to endless
litigation. It is also injudicious to reject a testimony solely on the
basis of such recantation, which may later be repudiated, as this
“will make a solemn trial a mockery and place the investigation at
the mercy of unscrupulous witnesses.”
Same; Same; Same; Same; Same; To warrant a new trial, the
witness’ affidavit of desistance must constitute a recantation and
not a mere withdrawal from the prosecution of the case.—To
warrant a new trial, Joylyn’s affidavit of desistance must
constitute a recantation and not a mere withdrawal from the
prosecution of the case. The Court en banc in Alonte, speaking
through Mr. Justice Jose C. Vitug, held that the complainant’s
affidavit of desistance did not constitute a recantation, because
she did not deny the truth of her complaint but merely sought to
“be allowed to withdraw” and “discontinue” the case because she
wished “to start life anew and live normally again.” She never
absolved or exculpated the accused. In other words, a recantation
of a prior statement or testimony must
385
VOL. 288, MARCH 31, 1998 385
People vs. Garcia
necessarily renounce the said statement or testimony and

withdraw it formally and publicly.
Same; Same; Same; Same; Same; Experience has taught us
that it is not difficult to get the signatures of poor, unlettered and
gullible witnesses in strangely worded and difficult to decipher
legalese contained in affidavits of desistance.—Experience has
taught us that it is not difficult to get the signatures of poor,
unlettered and gullible witnesses in strangely worded and
difficult to decipher legalese contained in affidavits of desistance.
In the words of Mme. Justice Ameurfina A. Melencio-Herrera: “x x
x affidavits of recantation can easily be secured from poor and
ignorant witnesses for monetary consideration or through
intimidation. Recanted testimony is exceedingly unreliable, for
there is always the probability that it may later be repudiated.
Courts thus look with disfavor at affidavits of retractions of
testimony given in open court, and are wary or reluctant to allow
a new trial based on retracted testimony. Indeed, it would be a
dangerous rule to reject the testimony taken before the court of
justice simply because the witness later on changed his mind for
one reason or another, for such a rule will make a solemn trial a
mockery and will place the investigation of truth at the mercy of
unscrupulous witnesses.
APPEAL from a decision of the Regional Trial Court of

Manila, Br. XLVII.
The facts are stated in the opinion of the Court.

The Solicitor General for plaintiff-appellee.
Ng Law Firm for accused-appellant.
PANGANIBAN, J.:
Affidavits of desistance, especially those extracted from

poor, unlettered, young and gullible witnesses long after
the trial is over, are generally frowned upon. Testimony
solemnly given before a court of justice and subjected to the
test of cross-examination cannot just be set aside, and a
new trial granted on the basis of perfunctory and pro forma
affidavits that obviously were not prepared directly by the
witnesses
386
People vs. Garcia
themselves but by some legally trained individuals. The

credibility of trials and the pursuit of truth cannot be
placed at the unilateral disposal of timorous witnesses or
made dependent one one-sided statements prepared by
notaries.
The Case
The Court relies upon this 1

principium in resolving this
appeal from the Decision of the Regional Trial Court of
Manila, Branch XLVII, convicting Appellant Eduardo
Garcia of two counts of rape and sentencing him to two
terms of reclusion perpetua. Appellant prays that he “be
acquitted and/or the case be remanded to 2 the lower court
for reception of newly discovered evidence.”
On January 6, 1993, Complainant Joylyn Garcia,
accompanied and3 assisted by her sister Rowena and aunt
Librada Nuqui, lodged before the Manila Police a
complaint for rape against her father, Appellant Eduardo
Garcia.
After preliminary investigation, two separate
Informations, docketed as Criminal Case Nos. 93-114437
and 93-114438 and both dated January 8, 1993, were filed
by assistant Prosecutor Ferrer S. Co charging appellant
with rape. The Information in Criminal Case No. 93-
114437 reads:
“That sometime in the middle part of October 1992, in the cityof

Manila, Philippines, the said accused, armed with a
bladedweapon, did then and there wilfully, unlawfully and
feloniously,with lewd designs have carnal knowledge of JOYLYN
GARCIA YNUQUI, who is his daughter age 13 years, and by
means of force,
____________________________
1 Rollo, pp. 14-21. It was penned by Judge Lorenzo B. Veneracion, who also
presided over the trial.
2 Appellant’s Reply Brief, p. 9; Rollo, p. 90.
3 In the Appellant’s Brief, p. 6 (rollo, p. 38), the defense alleges that the
complaint was “initiated” by the complainant’s aunt Librada Nuqui and her sister
Rowena Garcia; but the complainant testified (TSN, p. 8, February 9, 1993; record,
p. 50) that it was another aunt and not Librada Nuqui who accompanied her.
387
VOL. 288, MARCH 31, 1998 387

People vs. Garcia
violence, threat and intimidation, succeeded in having sexual

intercourse with her, against
4
her will and consent.
CONTRARY TO LAW.”
Except for the date of the commission of the crime, the

Information in Criminal Case No. 93-114438 was similar to
the first:
“That sometime in the 2nd week of November 1992, in the city of

Manila, Philippines, the said accused, armed with a bladed
weapon, did then and there wilfully, unlawfully and feloniously,
with lewd designs have carnal knowledge of JOYLYN GARCIA Y
NUQUI, who is his daughter age 13 years, and by means of force,
violence, threat and intimidation, succeeded in having sexual
intercourse with her, against
5
her will and consent.
CONTRARY TO LAW.”
During arraignment, accused-appellant, assisted by

Counsel 6de Oficio Jesse Tiburan, pleaded not guilty to both
charges. The trial court consolidated the two cases and,
after due7 trial, promulgated on August 9, 1994 its assailed
Decision, the dispositive portion of which reads:
“WHEREFORE, judgment is hereby rendered finding [the]

accused, Eduardo Garcia y Dulay, guilty beyond reasonable doubt
of the crime of rape on two counts and hereby sentences him to
suffer the penalty of reclusion perpetua for each count of rape
charged in the Informations in these cases. The accused is further
ordered to indemnify the victim, Joylyn Garcia y Nuqui
8
the sum
of P100,000.00, Philippine Currency. SO ORDERED.”
____________________________
4 Record, p. 2.
5 Ibid., p. 8.
6 Ibid., p. 21.
7 Rollo, pp. 54-60.
8 Decision, p. 8; rollo, p. 61.
388

People vs. Garcia
9
Hence, this appeal. After the promulgation of the assailed
Decision, appellant filed before the trial court a motion for
a new trial. In its order dated April 21, 1995, the court a
quo held that “the Motion for10 New Trial should be
addressed to the Supreme Court.”
The Facts
According to the Prosecution
11
In the Appellee’s Brief, dated May 30, 1996, the solicitor
general presented the prosecution’s version of the case
facts:
“The victim, Joylyn Garcia, a first year student at the Nolasco

High School in Tondo, Manila, testified that sometime in the
middle of October, 1992, about 9:00 o’clock in the evening,
appellant Eduardo Garcia, her father, gave her medicine for her
illness. At the time, Joylyn was lying in bed (TSN, p. 3, February
9, 1993). After Joylyn took the medicine which caused her to
sleep, appellant placed himself on top of Joylyn and poked a
pointed object on her right side. Appellant then held her arms,
spread her knees (legs) and inserted his penis into her vagina.
Appellant remained in that position for about three (3) minutes
after which he left the house. After the incident, Joylyn reported
her ordeal to Librada Nuqui, her auntie (TSN, pp. 4-5, February
9, 1993).
Joylyn continued that sometime in the second week of
November, 1992, also in the evening, she was again raped by her
father when they were left alone in their house. She likewise
reported the incident to her auntie (TSN, pp. 6-7, February 9,
1993).
The records show that after the incidents were reported to the
City Hall Detachment, Joylyn was examined by Dr. Manuel
Lagonera, medico-legal officer of the Western Police District
Command (WPDC). His findings were contained in Report No.
WB-93-01 (Exh. “G”) dated February 12, 1993, thus:
____________________________
9 The case was deemed submitted for resolution on October 18, 1996
upon receipt by this Court of Appellant’s Reply Brief.
10 Records, p. 244.
11 The Appellee’s Brief was signed by Solicitor General Raul I. Goco,
Assistant Solicitor General Carlos N. Ortega, and Associate Solicitor
Thomas M. Laragan.
389
VOL. 288, MARCH 31, 1998 389

People vs. Garcia
PHYSICAL AND VAGINAL EXAMINATION REPORT

GENERAL DATA:
“Joylyn N. Garcia, 13 years old, single, presently residing at 362-B Sta.

Isabel St., Bo. San Antonio, Zaragosa, Tondo, Manila, consulted the
medico-legal office on 5 January 1993 at about 8:45 p.m. accompanied by
aunt and sister for physical and vaginal examination as requested by
Chief Insp. Honorato Laurel of GAD, WPD.”
GENERAL APPEARANCE AND PHYSICAL EXAMINATION:
Fairly nourished and fairly developed, conscious but incoherent. Mentally

unstable with slurred speech.
Breasts—Hemi-spherical in shape with brownish nipples and areolae.
Abdomen—soft and flat without strae [sic] of pregnancy.
Vaginal canal—admits one examining finger with resistance and
moist.
Hymen—thin with circular opening and showed incomplete and
superficial healed laceration at 3:00 o’clock position with non-coaptable
edges and not congested.
IMPRESSION/CONCLUSION: 12
Consistent with a girl who is no longer a virgin.”
Scenario of the Defense
The defense claims that appellant did not commit the crime
charged. It also prays for a new trial for the reception of
newly discovered evidence13
consisting of the complainant’s
Affidavit of Desistance, in which she recanted her
testimony that 14she was raped by her father. The
Appellant’s Brief narrates the facts as viewed by the
defense:
____________________________
12 Appellee’s Brief, pp. 5-8; rollo, pp. 70f-70i.

13 Record, p. 235.
14 The Appellant’s Brief was signed by Atty. Nelson Y. Ng of the Ng
Law Firm.
390

People vs. Garcia
“Two Informations for two counts of rape were filed against the
[a]ccused by his daughter, Joylyn Garcia[,] allegedly committed
[i]n the middle part of October 1992 and November 1992 in their
residence in Tondo, Manila.
Complainant was assisted by her sister, Rowena Garcia and
her [a]untie, Librada Nuqui when they lodged a complaint in the
police detachment, at the ground floor of Manila City Hall
sometime on January 6, 1993. Thereafter, accused was arrested
and until now, he is detained at the Muntinlupa Penitentiary.
The wife (mother of complainant), brother and grandmother of
the complainant testified for the [a]ccused while the sister,
Rowena Garcia and their [a]untie, Librada Nuqui initiated this
criminal case. There was internal family feud, which furnishes
the motive for this charge.
Complainant was a thirteen (13) year old high school student
at the time of the incident. Beginning June 1992 up to November
11, 1992, she was staying at the residence of her [a]untie. (T.S.N.
of Feb. 23, 1993, p. 7). She was brought to their house on
November 11, 1992 already in a state of shock (tulala) and
mumbling incoherently. She was treated by a quack doctor.
Later[,] she mumbled that she was touched and was being
threatened. (Naagrabyado, T.S.N. of 2/23/95, p. 9). Under the
pitiful and pathetic situation, the [a]ccused, together with his
wife, brought their aforesaid daughter, Joylyn Garcia to the
hospital for psychiatric treatment (Exhibit ‘1’).
In December 1992, the mother and wife of the [a]ccused
brought their daughter to Phil. General Hospital for treatment.
(Exhibit ‘2,’ ‘3-A’, ‘3-B’).
For the prosecution, [c]omplainant took the witness [stand] and
the doctor who examined her. (Exhibit ‘F’ and ‘F-1’). For the
defense, the [a]ccused denied that he raped his own daughter. The
wife testified for the [a]ccused and averred that they were
sidewalk vendors in Divisoria, Manila and usually arrived home
together at about 8:00 p.m. or 9:00 p.m. and usually left at the
wee hour of day at about 3:00 a.m. The defense presented Dr.
Agueda Sunga and Dra. Anita Poblete of PGH who examined the
accused and found her hymen to be still intact. The brother of the
[c]omplainant likewise testified that his father could not have
raped his sister.
After trial, Judge Veneracion rendered the disputed decision
finding the [a]ccused guilty beyond reasonable doubt of two counts
of rape.
391
People vs. Garcia

VOL. 288, MARCH 31, 1998 391
While the case is on appeal, [c]omplainant executed an

Affidavit of Desistance dated November 25, 1995 before the
undersigned counsel, recanting her previous testimony and

apologized for the grievous mistake in accusing her father. In
view of the recantation of said complainant, [a]ccused filed a
Motion for New Trial based on newly discovered evidence but the
lower court denied the said motion, contained [sic] in an Order
dated April 21, 1995 reasoning that
‘The Court feels that the Motion for New Trial should be
addressedto the Supreme Court.’
This [a]ppeal is interposed to reverse the finding of the lower
court on the ground that the guilt of the [a]ccused has not been
proved beyond reasonable doubt, and/or based on constitutional
presumption of innocence which has not been overcome especially
in the light of the inconsistent
15
testimony of the complainant and
her subsequent recantation.”
Joylyn Garcia’s affidavit reads:
“AFFIDAVIT OF DESISTANCE
I, Joylyn Garcia, Filipino, single, of legal age, with postal address

at 362-B Sta. Isabel St., Barrio San Antonio, Tondo, Manila, after
being duly sworn, hereby depose under oath that:
1. I am the complainant against my father, Eduardo Garcia

for rape under criminal case nos. 93-114437, 93-114438,
RTC of Manila, Branch 47;
2. I retract my previous testimony in court that I was raped
twice by my father, Eduardo Garcia sometime in October
and November 1992. It is not true that my father, Eduardo
Garcia, raped me at our house. I apologize for the
grievuous [sic] mistake in accusing my father;
3. The filing of the criminal case was upon instruction of my
[a]untie, Roselle Nuqui and my sister, Rowena Garcia. At
that time, I was still in shock and suffering from nervuous
[sic] breakdown. I had no mind of my own. I testified in
court pursuant to what was dictated upon me by my said
relatives.
____________________________
15 Appellant’s Brief, pp. 1-4; rollo, pp. 33-36.
392

People vs. Garcia
4. This affidavit is executed to nullify the decision convicting

my father of the crime of rape and to set free my father
who was innocent of the crime of rape.
I execute this affidavit to attest to the truth of the foregoing for

whatever legal purpose it may serve.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand this
________ day of October 1994 at Manila, Philippines.
(SGD.)
JOYLYN GARCIA16
Affiant”
Issues
In his Brief, appellant assigns the following “errors

committed by the lower court”:
“I. The information is fatally defective as the same was

not signed or assisted by the parents; [sic]
II. The accused should be acquitted as the
constitutional presumption of innocence has not
been overcome;
III. The alleged rape is [a] figment of imagination and
is not credible; and
IV. New hearing should be held for [the] reception of
newly discovered evidence 17in view of the
recantation of the complainant.”
The Court, in the interest of clarity, will combine the

foregoing into two issues:
1. Sufficiency of the complaint.

2. Sufficiency of the prosecution evidence and the
effect of the recantation.
The Court’s Ruling
The appeal is bereft of merit. The affidavit of desistance

cannot be the basis for granting a new trial or an acquittal.
____________________________
16 Records, p. 235; underscoring supplied. The affidavit was undated

but it was notarized on November 25, 1995 by Counsel Ng.
17 Appellant’s Brief, p. 4; rollo, p. 36.
393
VOL. 288, MARCH 31, 1998 393

People vs. Garcia
First Issue: Sufficiency of the Complaint
The defense points out that when the complaint was lodged
with the police by Complainant Joylyn Garcia, the latter
“was not in full control of her mental
18
faculties as she was
still then in a state of shock.” Because of Joylyn’s
condition at the time, the complaint should have been filed
by her parents. Since it was the complainant’s aunt and
elder sister who “assisted” her in filing the complaint,
appellant posits that the19 regional trial court acquired no
jurisdiction over the case.
We are not persuaded. Complainant Joylyn Garcia may
have been mentally distressed, but she was not proven to
be legally incapacitated. In the presence of PO3 Fidel
Geronimo, she was able to personally sign her Salaysay or
affidavit showing her ravishment. In said Salaysay, she
answered the police officer’s questions on why she 20 was
there, stating that she was raped by her own father. It
was only thereafter that she was assisted by Rowena
Garcia, her 21
sister, in narrating how the rape was
committed. At any rate, a person is presumed to be in
control of his or her faculties. Whoever alleges otherwise
has the burden of proof. Aside from his bare allegations,
appellant presented no convincing evidence that
complainant was legally incapacitated by reason of her
mental state when she filed her complaint. Accordingly, it
becomes immaterial that only her aunt and elder sister,
who were not her guardians, assisted her. Section 5, Rule
110 of the Rules of Court, clearly provides that she could
have filed the complaint on her own, viz.:
“xxx The offended party, even if she were a minor, has the right to
initiate the prosecution for the above offenses, independently of
her parents, grandparents or guardians, unless she is
incompetent or incapable of doing so upon grounds other than her
minority. xxx”
____________________________
18 Ibid., p. 6; rollo, p. 38.

19 Ibid., pp. 4 and 6; rollo, pp. 36 and 38.
20 Salaysay, p. 1; records, p. 4.
21 Ibid., pp. 1-2; records, pp. 4-5.
394

People vs. Garcia
Second Issue: Sufficiency of Prosecution Evidence
After a thorough review of the evidence presented during

the trial, we hold that the trial court did not err in
convicting appellant. Joylyn Garcia testified that she was
twice raped by her own father, as shown by salient portions
of her February 9, 1993 testimony:
“PUBLIC PROS.:
Sometime in the middle of October, 1992, do you
remember of any unusual incident that happened to
you?
A.: Yes, sir.
Q.: What was that?
A.: I was then sick at that time lying on a bed, then my
father gave me medicine which have [sic] caused me to
sleep and he then placed himself on top of me.
Q.: Would you still remember the exact date when that
sad experience of yours happened?
A.: I cannot remember the date, sir.
Q.: Was it in the first week of October?
A.: Yes, sir.
Q.: Or it could also be in the 2nd week of October?
A.: Yes, sir.
Q.: After your father placed himself on top of you, what
did he do, if you still remember?
A.: He raped me, sir.
Q.: Will you described [sic] how you were raped by your
father?
A.: He pointed or poked a pointed object on my right side,
then, ‘ginalaw niya ako.’
Q.: Will you describe to the Honorable Court how you were
abused by your father?
A.: He was holding my 2 arms and spreading my 2 knees.
Then he inserted his private organ to my private
organ.
Q.: You said your father raped you. If your father is in

Court, will you be able to point to him?
A.: Yes, sir.
395
VOL. 288, MARCH 31, 1998 395

People vs. Garcia
Q.: Please do.

INTERPRETER:
Witness pointing to a person presently in Court seated
at the front row and when asked to give his name, he
identified himself as Eduardo Garcia.
PUBLIC PROS.:
You said that your father placed himself on top of you
and inserted his private organ to your private organ, is
that correct?
A.: Yes, sir.
Q.: After that, what more did he do, if any?
A.: [H]e repeated it, sir.
Q.: What do you mean by ‘he repeated it?’
A.: He repeated what he had done to me.
Q.: How long if you remember did he stay on top of you
when his penis was inserted inside your organ?
A.: About 3 minutes, sir.
Q.: After 3 minutes, what did your father do?
A.: He just left, sir.
Q.: Do you mean he went out of your house?
A.: Yes, sir.
Q.: How about you, what did you do after your father left
and raped you?
A.: I went to my auntie and told her what happened.
Q.: What [sic] happened in the middle part of October,
1992, is that right?
A.: Yes, sir.
Q.: You said you went to your auntie, by the way, what
time did your father had [sic] sexual intercourse with
you in the middle part of October, 1992?
A.: It was at 9:00 o’clock in the evening.
Q.: After the incident in the middle part of October, 1992,

did your father do anything to you?
A.: Yes, sir.
Q.: What was that he did to you?
A.: He again inserted his private organ to my organ.
396

People vs. Garcia
Q.: In your reckoning, when did your father do this again

to you?
A.: I cannot remember, sir.
Q.: You said that the first time you were raped by your
father was in the middle part of October. After
October, 1992, did your father again rape you or have
sexual intercourse with you?
A.: After one month, sir.
Q.: Would that mean the following month, which is
November?
A.: Yes, sir.
Q.: Where did your father have sexual intercourse with
you for the second time?
A.: In our house, sir.
Q.: Do you still remember what time of the day it
happened?
22
A.: In the evening, sir.”
The foregoing testimony, by itself, is sufficient to overcome

the presumption of innocence. Indeed, “when an alleged
victim of rape says that she was violated, she says in effect
all that is necessary to show that the rape has been
inflicted on her and so long as her testimony meets the test
of credibility,
23
the accused may be convicted on the basis
thereof.” Moreover, the trial court itself gave full credence
to the said testimony. Well-settled is the rule that the trial
court’s assessment of the credibility of 24witnesses is
conclusive and binding on appellate courts. We find no
reason to disregard the trial court’s evaluation of young
Joylyn’s testimony.
We are not persuaded by appellant’s insistent denial,
which is a weak defense that is easy to fabricate. It failed
to overcome Joylyn’s testimony during trial which

identified him as the perpetrator of two counts of rape.
____________________________
22 Record, pp. 44-47.

23 People vs. Ramirez, 266 SCRA 335, 348, January 20, 1997, per
Panganiban, J.
24 People vs. Luzorata, G.R. No. 122478, February 24, 1998, pp. 7-8.
397
VOL. 288, MARCH 31, 1998 397

People vs. Garcia
Appellant also cites other circumstances which allegedly

negate the commission of rape:
1. “[I]t is contrary to human experience that a mother

will be so callous and uncaring as to allow the
second rape to be committed on her daughter.”
2. A family feud existed between the accused and
Librada Nuqui by reason of their quarrel over a
market stall.
3. The family abode is located in a crowded squatter
area and it is thus “improbable that the crime
charged could have been committed without being
noticed by the neighbors.”
4. Joylyn’s testimony is inconsistent and incredible
because in her Salaysay “she omitted to mention
that she was given medicine by her father” and,
when queried during cross-examination on this
omission, she could not give an adequate
explanation, stating instead that her father
threatened her with a pointed object.
5. Although appellant’s wife testified that she and her
husband usually left and returned home together,
Joylyn did not explain why she was home alone
with appellant during the alleged rape.
6. From June to November 11, 1992, complainant
stayed in the house of Librada Nuqui, but she was
already tulala when she returned home.
7. “The alleged rape is not supported by the physical
evidence on record,” because of Dr. Poblete’s finding
of an intact hymen and testimony that there was no
penetration25
“(e)ven if there has been actual
contact.”
The foregoing appear to have been raised faute de mieux

and do not detract from the correctness of the trial court’s
factual finding and conclusion.
The allegation that the mother could not have allowed
her daughter to be raped a second time has no factual
basis. The
____________________________
25 Appellant’s Brief, pp. 7-9; rollo, pp. 39-41.
398

People vs. Garcia
record reveals no indication that the mother had any

knowledge of either the first or the second rape. It appears
that Joylyn never reported the first incident of rape to her
mother. Significantly, Joylyn intimated the 26atrocity to her
aunt (Librada Nuqui) and not to her mother.
Moreover, it is implausible
27
that, for a mere squabble
over a market stall, Librada Nuqui would allow Joylyn to
suffer the untold difficulties and humiliation attendant on
a rape prosecution if the accusation were not true. It must
be noted that Librada took Joylyn Garcia home and cared
for her; in return, Joylyn showered her with
28
a love greater
than that which she gave to her parents.
Neither does the crime scene render the commission of
the crime impossible. This Court has held that rape “can be
committed even in places where people congregate, in
parks, along the roadside, within school premises and even
inside a house where there are other occupants or where
other members of the family 29
are also sleeping. Lust is no
respecter of time and place.”
Appellant raises too much ado over the failure of Joylyn
to mention in her Salaysay that her father gave her some
medicine before he raped her, a detail found however in her
testimony. This omission merely shows that her sworn
statement was incomplete, but it 30does not detract from the
overall veracity of her testimony. The lapse in her sworn
statement was consistent with her mental stress at the
time of its execution.
____________________________
26 TSN, February 9, 1993, p. 10; record, p. 52.

27 See also People vs. Excija, 258 SCRA 424, 440-441, July 5, 1996.
28 TSN, February 9, 1993, p. 9, record, p. 51.

29 People vs. Dabon, 216 SCRA 656, December 16, 1992, per Regalado,
J., citing People vs. De los Reyes, 203 SCRA 707, November 19, 1991;
People v. Mangalino, 182 SCRA 329, February 15, 1990. See also People
vs. San Juan, pp. 17-18, G.R. No. 105556, April 4, 1997.
30 See People vs. Pontilar, Jr., supra, pp. 20-21.
399
VOL. 288, MARCH 31, 1998 399

People vs. Garcia
We also find pointless appellant’s insistence that, in view of

the testimony of his wife that she and her husband usually
left and returned home together, the victim should have
explained why she was alone with him during the alleged
rape. Such explanation is immaterial. The prosecution’s
duty is to prove that the accused committed the crime, not
to explain a circumstance of insignificant relevance. As
earlier observed, the prosecution successfully discharged
this burden.
Equally pointless is appellant’s allegation that the
victim stayed in the house of Librada Nuqui from June to
November 11, 1992 and was already tulala when she
returned. Appellant, however, is not here arguing that the
victim never set foot inside the locus criminis during the
period in question. On the other hand, Joylyn did testify
that, in two instances, he father raped her inside their
house.
Likewise, we cannot sustain appellant’s argument that
the physical evidence did not support the alleged rape. The
medical expert for the prosecution testified that there were
hymenal lacerations. Although this was rebutted by Dr.
Poblete who appeared for the defense, it must be
emphasized that hymenal laceration is not an element of
rape. It is sufficient that there was sexual congress, and
that this was consummated by the slightest introduction
31
of
the male organ into the labia of the pudendum.
On the basis of the evidence presented during trial, the
trial court was justified in concluding that appellant
committed the crime charged. After the promulgation of the
assailed Decision, however, herein appellant presented a
“newly discovered evidence” and prayed that a new trial be
conducted. In view of the pendency of this appeal, the trial
court held that the matter should be addressed to this
Court. We shall now resolve it.
____________________________
31 People vs. Castromero, G.R. No. 118992, October 9, 1997; People vs.
Ligotan, 262 SCRA 602, September 30, 1996.
400

People vs. Garcia
Recantation and Motion for New Trial
On February 27, 1995, during the pendency of this appeal

to this Court, the defense filed before the trial court a
timely Motion for New Trial on the basis of an Affidavit of
Desistance executed by Complainant Joylyn Garcia on
November 25, 1994. Such motion was filed under Sec. 2,
Rule 121 of the Rules of Court, which provides:
“Sec. 2. Grounds for a new trial.—The court shall grant a new

trial on any of the following grounds:
(a) That errors of law or irregularities have been committed

during the trial prejudicial to the substantial rights of the
accused;
(b) That new and material evidence has been discovered
which the accused could not with reasonable diligence
have discovered and produced at the trial, and which if
introduced and admitted, would probably change the
judgment.”
When confronted with an affidavit of recantation, courts

are called upon to weigh countervailing values in our legal
and judicial system. A recantation, as a general rule, is not
sufficient to warrant a new trial. If it were otherwise, a
new trial would be granted whenever an interested party
succeeds in intimidating or inducing any or some of the
witnesses to retract after trial their testimony, thus,
opening the door to endless litigation. It is also injudicious
to reject a testimony solely on the basis of such recantation,
which may later be repudiated, as this “will make a solemn
trial a mockery and place32the investigation at the mercy of
unscrupulous
33
witnesses.” Thus, the Court in People vs.
Junio held:
____________________________
32 People vs. Soria, 262 SCRA 739, 749-750, October 4, 1996, per
Davide, Jr., J., Lopez vs. Court of Appeals, 239 SCRA 562, 565-566,
December 29, 1994, Reano vs. Court of Appeals, 165 SCRA 525, 530-531,
September 21, 1988, Ibabao vs. People, 132 SCRA 216, 221, September 28,
1984, and People vs. Pimentel, 118 SCRA 695, 704, November 25, 1982.
33 237 SCRA 826, 834, October 28, 1994, per Bellosillo, J.
401
VOL. 288, MARCH 31, 1998 401

People vs. Garcia
“The appellant’s submission that the execution of an Affidavit of

Desistance by complainant who was assisted by her mother
supported the ‘inherent incredibility of prosecution’s evidence is
specious. We have said in so many cases that retractions are
generally unreliable and are looked upon with considerable
disfavor by the courts. The unreliable character of this document
is shown by the fact that it is quite incredible that after going
through the process of having accused-appellant arrested by the
police, positively identifying him as the person who raped her,
enduring the humiliation of a physical examination of her private
parts, and then repeating her accusation in open court by
recounting her anguish, Maryjane would suddenly turn around
and declare that ‘[a]fter a careful deliberation over the case, (she)
find(s) that the same does not merit or warrant criminal
prosecution.’
Thus, we have declared that at most the retraction is an
afterthought which should not be given probative value. It would
be a dangerous rule to reject the testimony taken before the court
of justice simply because the witness who has given it later on
changed his mind for one reason or another. Such a rule will
make a solemn trial a mockery and place the investigation at the
mercy of unscrupulous witnesses. Because affidavits of retraction
can easily be secured from poor and ignorant witnesses, usually
for monetary consideration, the Court has invariably regarded
such affidavits as exceedingly unreliable.”
To warrant a new trial, Joylyn’s affidavit of desistance

must constitute a recantation and not a mere withdrawal
from the
34
prosecution of the case. The Court en banc in
Alonte, speaking through Mr. Justice Jose C. Vitug, held
that the complainant’s affidavit of desistance did not
constitute a recantation, because she did not deny the truth
of her complaint but merely sought to “be allowed to
withdraw” and “discontinue” the case because she wished
“to start life anew and live normally again.” She never
absolved or exculpated the accused. In other words, a

recantation of a prior state-
____________________________
34 Alonte vs. Savellano, Jr., G.R. No. 131652 and Concepcion vs.
Savellano, Jr., G.R. No. 131728, pp. 17-20, March 9, 1998.
402

People vs. Garcia
ment or testimony must necessarily renounce the said

statement 35
or testimony and withdraw it formally and
publicly.
Although the affidavit of Joylyn states that “[i]t is not
true that my father, Eduardo Garcia, raped me at our
house,” it is bereft of details or any other badge of
credibility, not to say of truth. Such a statement is not
sufficient; it is merely a legal conclusion that could not
have come directly from the mouth of this young girl. More
likely, it was prepared by a legal mind and presented to the
complainant already typed and signature-ready. In
comparison with the unpretentious, candid, detailed and
credible testimony of Joylyn quoted earlier in this Decision,
the affidavit crumbles into a desperate clutch at straws. It
is not the withdrawal or recantation or exculpation that the
law considers sufficient to overturn the overwhelming
evidence earlier given during the trial.
Experience has taught us that it is not difficult to get
the signatures of poor, unlettered and gullible witnesses in
strangely worded and difficult to decipher legalese
contained in affidavits of desistance. In the words of Mme.
Justice Ameurfina A. Melencio-Herrera:
“x x x affidavits of recantation can easily be secured from poor and

ignorant witnesses for monetary consideration or through
intimidation. Recanted testimony is exceedingly unreliable, for
there is always the probability that it may later be repudiated.
Courts thus look with disfavor at affidavits of retractions of
testimony given in open court, and are wary or reluctant to allow
a new trial based on retracted testimony. Indeed, it would be a
dangerous rule to reject the testimony taken before the court of
justice simply because the witness later on changed his mind for
one reason or another, for such a rule will make a solemn trial a
mockery and will place the36
investigation of truth at the mercy of
unscrupulous witnesses.
In the case at bar, Joylyn executed her affidavit of

desistance (1) about one year and nine months after she
voluntar-
____________________________
35 Ibid., p. 19; citing People vs. Ballabare, 264 SCRA 350, November 19,
1996.
36 Ibabao vs. People, supra, p. 221.
403
VOL. 288, MARCH 31, 1998 403

People vs. Garcia
ily and solemnly gave her testimony before the trial court
and (2) more than ten months after the judgment of
conviction was promulgated. This Court is inclined to give
credence and faith to this girl’s straightforward, detailed
and consistent testimony rather than to the brief,
perfunctory, pro forma and highly suspect affidavit of
desistance which obviously did not emanate directly from
her mouth but was merely prepared for her adherence. “It
is absurd to disregard a testimony that has undergone trial
and scrutiny by the court and the parties simply because
an affidavit withdrawing 37the testimony is subsequently
presented by the defense.” It is simply inconceivable that
Joylyn, a naïve thirteen-year-old girl would falsely accuse
her own father of rape and wreak havoc on their family
unless her solitary goal is to “bring to justice the satyr
whose beastliness
38
[is] the cause of her loss of virginity at a
tender age.” Unarguably, her affidavit of desistance—
executed after the completion of the trial and the
promulgation of 39
the judgment of conviction—has no
probative value and cannot be the basis for granting a
new trial or an acquit-tal.
WHEREFORE, the appeal is DENIEDand the assailed
Decision finding Eduardo Garcia guilty beyond reasonable
doubt of two counts of rape, sentencing him to two terms of
reclusion perpetuaand ordering him to pay indemnity of
P100,000 is AFFIRMED.Costs against appellant.
SO ORDERED.
Davide, Jr. (Chairman), Bellosillo, Vitug and

Quisumbing, JJ., concur.
Appeal denied; Assailed decision affirmed.
____________________________
37 People vs. Ballabare, 264 SCRA 350, 361, November 19, 1996, per
Mendoza, J.
38 People vs. Perez, 270 SCRA 526, 535, March 26, 1997, per Romero, J.
39 People vs. Villorente, supra, p. 660.
404

People vs. Cario
Notes.—The pardon to justify the dismissal of the

complaint should be made prior to the institution of the
criminal action by no less than the offended party herself
where she is of legal age and not otherwise incapacitated.
(People vs. Acabo, 259 SCRA 75 [1996])
A recantation does not necessarily cancel an earlier
declaration. (People vs. Dalabajan, 280 SCRA 696 [1997])
——o0o——
© Copyright 2018 Central Book Supply, Inc. All rights reserved.

3 People Vs Garcia

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

3 People Vs Garcia

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

3 People Vs Garcia

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

11/28/2018 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 288

382 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs.

Evidence; Affidavits; Affidavits of Desistance; The credibility

VOL. 288, MARCH 31, 1998 383

People vs. Garcia

she was not proven to be legally incapacitated. In the presence of

384 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

People vs. Garcia

that the accused committed the crime, not to explain a

VOL. 288, MARCH 31, 1998 385

People vs. Garcia

necessarily renounce the said statement or testimony and

APPEAL from a decision of the Regional Trial Court of

The facts are stated in the opinion of the Court.

Affidavits of desistance, especially those extracted from

386 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

People vs. Garcia

themselves but by some legally trained individuals. The

The Court relies upon this 1

“That sometime in the middle part of October 1992, in the cityof

VOL. 288, MARCH 31, 1998 387

violence, threat and intimidation, succeeded in having sexual

Except for the date of the commission of the crime, the

“That sometime in the 2nd week of November 1992, in the city of

During arraignment, accused-appellant, assisted by

“WHEREFORE, judgment is hereby rendered finding [the]

388 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

“The victim, Joylyn Garcia, a first year student at the Nolasco

VOL. 288, MARCH 31, 1998 389

PHYSICAL AND VAGINAL EXAMINATION REPORT

“Joylyn N. Garcia, 13 years old, single, presently residing at 362-B Sta.

GENERAL APPEARANCE AND PHYSICAL EXAMINATION:

Fairly nourished and fairly developed, conscious but incoherent. Mentally

Scenario of the Defense

12 Appellee’s Brief, pp. 5-8; rollo, pp. 70f-70i.

390 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

People vs. Garcia

While the case is on appeal, [c]omplainant executed an

undersigned counsel, recanting her previous testimony and

Joylyn Garcia’s affidavit reads:

I, Joylyn Garcia, Filipino, single, of legal age, with postal address

1. I am the complainant against my father, Eduardo Garcia

15 Appellant’s Brief, pp. 1-4; rollo, pp. 33-36.

392 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

4. This affidavit is executed to nullify the decision convicting

who was innocent of the crime of rape.

I execute this affidavit to attest to the truth of the foregoing for

In his Brief, appellant assigns the following “errors

“I. The information is fatally defective as the same was

The Court, in the interest of clarity, will combine the

1. Sufficiency of the complaint.

The Court’s Ruling

The appeal is bereft of merit. The affidavit of desistance

16 Records, p. 235; underscoring supplied. The affidavit was undated

VOL. 288, MARCH 31, 1998 393

First Issue: Sufficiency of the Complaint

18 Ibid., p. 6; rollo, p. 38.

394 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED