GR 117407; (April, 1997) (Digest)
G.R. No. 117407 . April 15, 1997.
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. IRVIN TADULAN y EPAN, accused-appellant.
FACTS
Accused-appellant Irvin Tadulan was charged with the rape of nine-year-old Maristel Cruz. The prosecution established that on April 2, 1992, Tadulan, a neighbor, lured the victim into his apartment. There, he removed her clothing and his own, fondled her, and succeeded in having carnal knowledge with her. When the victim tried to resist, Tadulan poked a knife at her, compelling her submission. The act caused pain and bleeding. The crime was discovered two days later when a laundry woman noticed blood stains on the victim’s underwear. Upon her mother’s persistent questioning, Maristel revealed the assault.
The victim’s mother, Estela Santos, initially confronted Tadulan, who first denied but later admitted the act. Santos told Tadulan’s wife she would not take legal action if the family vacated their rented apartment immediately. Tadulan’s wife agreed and claimed to have driven him away, requesting to stay until April 11. However, Santos observed Tadulan still returning nightly, culminating in a violent quarrel on April 11, which prompted Santos to call the police. At the station, formal complaints were filed.
ISSUE
Whether the initial desistance by the victim’s mother from filing a complaint constitutes a valid express pardon that extinguishes criminal liability.
RULING
No, the initial desistance does not constitute a valid express pardon. The Supreme Court affirmed the conviction. The Court explained that for pardon under Article 344 of the Revised Penal Code to extinguish criminal liability in crimes against chastity, it must be express. The mother’s conditional agreement to forego action—contingent on the accused vacating the premises and staying away—was not an unconditional pardon. The accused failed to comply with these conditions by continuing to return home, thereby nullifying any implied pardon.
Furthermore, prevailing jurisprudence holds that for offenses against a minor, a pardon must be granted not only by the parents but also by the minor victim herself to be effective. In this case, any desistance came solely from the mother without the concurrence of the nine-year-old victim, Maristel Cruz. Consequently, the pardon was legally ineffective. The trial court’s decision was affirmed, with the civil indemnity increased to Fifty Thousand Pesos (P50,000.00) in accordance with prevailing jurisprudence for rape of a minor.