G.R. Nos. 134769-71; October 12, 2001
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. ROBERTO BATION, accused-appellant.

FACTS

Accused-appellant Roberto Bation was charged with three counts of rape committed against his 15-year-old daughter, Editha Bation, on three consecutive nights in July 1994 in Godod, Zamboanga del Norte. The prosecution evidence established that Editha was alone with her father at their farmhouse, where he sexually assaulted her each night, threatening to kill her and her mother if she reported the incidents. Editha subsequently became pregnant and gave birth in February 1995. Initially, Editha executed an affidavit of desistance, testifying that she had forgiven her father and was forced by her aunt to file the case. However, she later recanted this testimony, asserting that her aunt had coerced her into signing the affidavit and that her initial court testimony affirming it was likewise made under duress. She then provided a detailed account of the rapes.

ISSUE

The core issue is whether the guilt of the accused for three counts of rape was proven beyond reasonable doubt, considering the complainant’s execution of an affidavit of desistance and her subsequent recantation.

RULING

The Supreme Court affirmed the conviction. The Court dismissed the defense’s attempt to attribute the crime to a lack of religious instruction, emphasizing that such an argument holds no legal merit. The ruling hinged on the credibility of the victim’s testimony. The Court found Editha’s recanted testimony, wherein she vividly described the rapes and the threats made by her father, to be credible and consistent. It noted that her initial desistance and contradictory statements were satisfactorily explained as products of coercion and familial pressure, a common reaction in incestuous rape cases where the victim is trapped by fear and a distorted sense of family loyalty. The subsequent testimony, given when she was under the protection and counsel of the DSWD, was deemed more reliable and indicative of the truth.
The legal logic is that an affidavit of desistance does not automatically negate a rape charge, especially in incest cases. The prosecution of crimes is a public right, and a complainant’s pardon or desistance does not extinguish criminal liability. The Court meticulously evaluated the circumstances surrounding the desistance, finding it to be involuntary. Editha’s credible narrative, corroborated by her pregnancy and medical evidence, sufficiently established all the elements of rape through force and intimidation. The accused’s defense of denial could not prevail over the positive and categorical identification by the victim. Thus, the trial court’s findings were upheld, and the penalties, including civil indemnity, moral damages, and support for the offspring, were affirmed.