THE TRIAL COURT GRAVELY ERRED IN CONVICTING THE ACCUSED-APPELLANT OF
THE CRIMES CHARGED DESPITE THE PROSECUTION'S FAILURE TO PROVE HIS
GUILT BEYOND REASONABLE DOUBT.[17]
Accused-appellant asserts that he should be acquitted of the crimes charged
because the testimonies of the prosecution witnesses raised reasonable doubt on
whether he sexually abused BBB considering that the latter subsequently executed
an affidavit of desistance. He avers that the filing of the cases was only due to the
resentment of CCC towards him.[18]
THE COURT'S RULING
The appeal is bereft of merit.
BBB's affidavit of desistance cannot
be given any weight.
BBB's affidavit of desistance is not a ground for the dismissal of the case. Rape is
no longer considered a private crime as R.A. No. 8353 or the Anti-Rape Law of
1997 has reclassified rape as a crime against persons.[19] Rape may now be
prosecuted de officio; a complaint for rape commenced by the offended party is no
longer necessary for its prosecution.[20] 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.[21]
Moreover, it has been consistently held that courts look with disfavor on affidavits
of desistance. The rationale for this was extensively discussed in People v. Zafra:[22]
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 the [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 accusations in open court
by recounting her anguish, [the rape victim] 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 gave it later on
changed his mind for one reason or another. Such a rule [would] make a solemn