G.R. Nos. 119964-69 September 20, 1996
THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. VICTORINO DEL MUNDO, accused-appellant.

FACTS

Accused-appellant Victorino del Mundo was convicted by the Regional Trial Court of Cabanatuan City for six counts of rape committed against his ten-year-old daughter, Marivic del Mundo. The trial court, finding the evidence sufficient, imposed the penalty of reclusion perpetua for five counts committed in October 1993 and the death penalty for one count committed on July 22, 1994, the latter being covered by Republic Act No. 7659. The prosecution presented medical testimony from Dr. Jun Concepcion, whose examination revealed findings consistent with vaginal penetration, corroborating the victim’s allegations.
Subsequently, the case was elevated to the Supreme Court on automatic review. During the pendency of the appeal, accused-appellant, through new counsel, filed a verified motion for new trial. He attached an affidavit of desistance executed by the private complainant, Marivic, wherein she recanted her testimony and stated that the charges were a result of a misunderstanding and that the family had already reconciled. The motion argued that this newly discovered evidence would probably change the judgment if admitted.

ISSUE

Whether or not a new trial should be granted based on the private complainant’s affidavit of recantation.

RULING

Yes, the Supreme Court granted the motion for new trial and remanded the case to the court of origin. The Court emphasized that while recantations are generally viewed with suspicion and are insufficient to overturn a conviction, they may warrant a new trial if they constitute newly discovered evidence that could not have been discovered with reasonable diligence during the trial and would probably alter the judgment. The legal logic rests on the paramount duty of the courts to ensure a just determination by ascertaining the truth. Technical rules of procedure should not rigidly obstruct this objective. The Court adopted a liberal construction of the rules governing new trials to serve the ends of justice, allowing the accused the fullest opportunity to present his defense. The affidavit of desistance and recantation directly impugns the very foundation of the conviction—the testimony of the victim. To disregard it without a hearing could result in a miscarriage of justice. Therefore, to ferret out the truth, the case was remanded for the limited purpose of receiving the additional evidence, allowing the trial court to reassess the case in light of the recanted testimony and any other evidence the defense may present.