G.R. No. 147615 ; January 20, 2003
VIRGILIO SANTOS, petitioner, vs. THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, respondent.

FACTS

On May 10, 1987, between 8:00 and 9:00 in the evening, private complainant Transuelo P. de Jesus, an 18-year-old housewife, was on her way to buy a mosquito coil when she was grabbed and pulled into a vacant lot by the accused, Virgilio Santos. The accused covered her mouth, embraced and kissed her, and touched her private parts. He forcibly raised her skirt, removed her underwear, lowered his own pants and briefs, and began “poking” her vagina with his penis. The victim could not shout as the accused was holding a bladed weapon. The incident was interrupted when they heard the victim’s mother-in-law, Emeteria de Jesus, calling her name. The accused immediately stood up, warned the victim not to tell anyone, and left. The victim initially did not report the incident to her husband out of fear but told her mother-in-law the following morning and her husband two days later. A complaint for Attempted Rape was filed. The accused denied the allegations, claiming he was playing mahjong and was at home during the time of the incident. The Regional Trial Court (RTC) found him guilty of Attempted Rape. After conviction, the accused filed a Motion for New Trial or Reconsideration, attaching sworn affidavits of desistance from the private complainant and her witness. The RTC granted the motion, set aside its decision, and later, an Assisting Judge rendered a new Decision again finding the accused guilty. The Court of Appeals affirmed the RTC Decision. The accused appealed to the Supreme Court, raising issues on the affidavits of desistance, barangay and police blotter entries, material discrepancies in sworn statements, the prior dismissal of the case by the Municipal Trial Court and Provincial Prosecutor, and the appreciation of nighttime as an aggravating circumstance.

ISSUE

1. Whether the affidavits of desistance executed after conviction negate the accused’s criminal liability.
2. Whether the entries in the barangay and police blotters, which contained no initial allegation of attempted rape, cast doubt on the accusation.
3. Whether material discrepancies in the sworn statements of the private complainant and her witness affect their credibility.
4. Whether the prior dismissal of the complaint by the Municipal Trial Court and Provincial Prosecutor warrants the dismissal of the case.
5. Whether nighttime was properly appreciated as an aggravating circumstance.

RULING

1. The affidavits of desistance executed after conviction are unreliable and deserve scant attention. They were executed twelve days after the judgment of conviction and are mere afterthoughts. A recantation does not cancel an earlier credible declaration and is subject to tests of credibility. The Court looks with disfavor upon retractions as they can easily be secured through intimidation or monetary consideration.
2. The entries in the barangay and police blotters do not negate the occurrence of the crime. The failure to immediately record every detail in a blotter does not diminish the credibility of the complainant’s testimony. Entries in a police blotter are not conclusive proof of the facts stated therein.
3. The alleged material discrepancies in the sworn statements of the private complainant and her witness refer to minor details that do not affect the core of their testimony regarding the commission of the crime. Inconsistencies on minor details can strengthen credibility as they negate suspicion of rehearsed testimony.
4. The prior dismissal of the complaint during preliminary investigation by the Municipal Trial Court and Provincial Prosecutor does not constitute a bar to the filing of an information in court. The determination of probable cause for the filing of an information lies with the prosecutor, and once the case is filed in court, any prior dismissal in the preliminary investigation has no bearing on the court’s judgment.
5. Nighttime cannot be appreciated as an aggravating circumstance. For nighttime to be considered aggravating, it must be shown that it was specially sought by the offender to facilitate the crime. In this case, the prosecution failed to prove that the accused deliberately sought the cover of darkness to commit the crime. Furthermore, applying the retroactive effect of favorable penal laws, the provisions of the Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure, which require that aggravating circumstances must be alleged in the information, are applicable. Since nighttime was not alleged in the information, it cannot be appreciated.
The Supreme Court AFFIRMED the Decision of the Court of Appeals finding the accused guilty beyond reasonable doubt of Attempted Rape but MODIFIED the penalty. The accused is sentenced to an indeterminate penalty of two (2) years, four (4) months and one (1) day of prision correccional medium, as the minimum, to eight (8) years and one (1) day of prision mayor medium, as the maximum.