G.R. No. 174372 January 20, 2009
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Appellee, vs. ELPIDIO ANTONIO, Appellant.

FACTS

Appellant Elpidio Antonio was charged with two counts of rape against his minor daughter, AAA, before the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Nueva Ecija. The first incident allegedly occurred on June 6, 1994, and the second on August 14, 1994. In both instances, the Informations alleged that appellant, with the use of force and by pointing a kitchen knife, and taking advantage of his superior strength, had sexual intercourse with AAA against her will. The two cases were jointly tried. The prosecution’s version, as culled from the records, stated that on June 6, 1994, AAA, then 13 years old, awoke to find appellant touching her breasts and vagina. Over her resistance and at the point of a bladed weapon, he undressed her, inserted his penis into her vagina causing it to bleed, and threatened to kill her if she revealed the incident. On August 14, 1994, a similar incident occurred where appellant mashed and sucked her breasts, licked her vagina, pointed a bladed weapon at her, and again inserted his penis into her vagina, causing bleeding. AAA’s mother, BBB, later brought her for a medical examination which revealed healed hymenal lacerations. Appellant denied the charges, claiming they were filed in retaliation by BBB after an altercation. The RTC found appellant guilty beyond reasonable doubt of two counts of rape and sentenced him to death for each count. After the promulgation of the judgment, appellant filed a Motion for Reconsideration and a Motion for New Trial, anchored mainly on AAA’s purported execution of an Affidavit of Desistance dated September 23, 2000, wherein she stated that after careful deliberation, she found no sufficient basis for the charges and that the case was a result of a personal altercation between her parents. The trial court denied both motions. The case was elevated to the Supreme Court and subsequently referred to the Court of Appeals, which affirmed the trial court’s decision.

ISSUE

Whether the trial court erred in finding appellant guilty beyond reasonable doubt of two counts of rape despite the subsequent submission of an Affidavit of Desistance by the offended party, and in denying the Motion for New Trial and not giving credence to said affidavit.

RULING

The Supreme Court affirmed the decision of the Court of Appeals with modification. The appeal was bereft of merit. The Court held that the Affidavit of Desistance was presented after the judgment of conviction was promulgated, which the Court frowns upon. For such an affidavit to warrant a new trial, it must deny the truth of the complaint, not merely seek the withdrawal of the prosecution. AAA’s statement that there was no sufficient basis for conviction and that it was unjust was a legal conclusion, not a recantation of the factual allegations of rape. The Court cited People v. Junio, noting the unreliable character of such affidavits, given the victim’s prior positive identification, medical examination, and court testimony. Parenthetically, the affidavit was of doubtful authenticity as AAA’s signature thereon differed from her signature on her Complaint-Affidavit which she identified in open court. Thus, the conviction for both counts of rape must stand. However, in view of Republic Act No. 9346 prohibiting the death penalty, the penalty for each count of rape was reduced to reclusion perpetua, with no eligibility for parole.