G.R. No. 93322 February 4, 1994
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. LEOPOLDO DAVATOS and ROMEO TABANG, accused-appellants.

FACTS

The accused, Leopoldo Davatos and Romeo Tabang, were charged with the rape of Mennie Sanchez, a 13-year-old virgin, on February 7, 1989, in Puerto Princesa City. The prosecution presented Mennie, Dr. Alma F. Rivera, and Carmen Bacaser (Mennie’s guardian). Mennie testified that while waiting for a ride, the two accused, smelling of liquor, approached her. When she tried to run, Davatos caught her arm and Tabang poked a knife at her. They dragged her to a banana grove, threatened to kill her if she reported them, and then both successively raped her—first Tabang while she was pinned against a banana trunk, then Davatos on the ground—while the other menaced her with the knife. She bled and felt pain. She reported the incident about a week later after her aunts inquired about rumors. Dr. Rivera’s medical certificate showed a hymenal tear at the 6:00 o’clock position, which she opined could suggest recent sexual contact but could also have been self-inflicted. After the prosecution rested, the defense recalled Mennie to the stand. She recanted her previous testimony, claiming it was a lie and that she had actually had sexual intercourse with her boyfriend, Raffy Damasco. She implicated the accused only because they were always with Damasco. She stated her earlier testimony was due to fear of her strict aunt. She admitted the accused’s family had made overtures for an out-of-court settlement but denied receiving money. The defense highlighted the absence of contusions or hematoma on Mennie’s body in the medical report to refute the use of force.

ISSUE

Whether the trial court erred in convicting the accused based on Mennie Sanchez’s initial testimony despite her subsequent recantation.

RULING

The Supreme Court affirmed the conviction. It held that a recantation does not automatically nullify prior testimony. The credibility of both statements must be scrutinized, considering the circumstances and the witness’s demeanor. The trial judge, who directly observed Mennie, found her initial testimony more credible and described her recantation as that of a “rehearsed witness.” The Court deferred to this assessment. The absence of external injuries did not disprove rape, as the accused used a knife to threaten submission, and the healed hymenal laceration was consistent with the alleged rape 11 days prior to the examination. The non-presentation of the alleged boyfriend to corroborate the recantation was significant. The Court also noted that the accused’s attempts at an out-of-court settlement lent credence to the trial judge’s observation of external pressures. The denial of the motion for reconsideration or new trial was proper, as the recantation was not newly discovered evidence and had already been considered. The penalty of reclusion perpetua for each accused and an indemnity of Thirty Thousand Pesos (P30,000.00) each was affirmed.