GR 101507; (December, 1994) (Digest)
G.R. No. 101507 December 29, 1994
RAMON T. LOPEZ, petitioner, vs. COURT OF APPEALS and THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, respondents.
FACTS
Petitioner Ramon T. Lopez was charged with violation of the Anti-Carnapping Act of 1972. The information alleged that on March 13, 1984, in Manila, Lopez, conspiring with three others, used force, violence, and intimidation to carnap a Mitsubishi Colt Lancer from Emmanuel Dizon. The assailants, armed with bladed weapons, approached Dizon inside the UST compound, stabbed him, took control of the vehicle, hog-tied him, and later abandoned him in Cavite. Dizon was hospitalized. Later that same day, Dizon’s family spotted the carnapped vehicle along Roxas Boulevard, deliberately bumped it to force it to stop, and found Lopez in the driver’s seat. Lopez was arrested. Dizon, when brought to the scene, identified Lopez as one of the perpetrators.
ISSUE
Whether the Court of Appeals erred in affirming the conviction despite the subsequent recantation of the complaining witness, Emmanuel Dizon.
RULING
The Supreme Court affirmed the conviction. The Court ruled that the retraction or recantation of a witness does not automatically nullify the original testimony given in court. The rationale is that affidavits of desistance are viewed with disfavor as they can be easily obtained through intimidation or monetary consideration, making recanted testimony exceedingly unreliable. The proper test is to carefully compare the original testimony with the subsequent retraction, applying the general rules of evidence to ascertain which represents the truth.
In this case, Dizon’s original testimony during trial was coherent, clear, precise, and unwavering even under cross-examination, wherein he positively identified Lopez as the culprit. In contrast, his later affidavit and testimony recanting his identification were deemed unreliable. The Court found his explanation for the recantation—that his conscience bothered him after several years—to be unconvincing, especially when juxtaposed with his firm and credible original account. Therefore, the trial court and the Court of Appeals correctly gave credence to Dizon’s original testimony. The penalty imposed, an indeterminate sentence of seventeen years and four months to twenty years, was also affirmed as being in accordance with the Anti-Carnapping Act.