G.R. No. 183619; October 13, 2009
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Appellee, vs. SALVINO SUMINGWA, Appellant.

FACTS

Appellant Salvino Sumingwa was charged with multiple crimes, including rape and acts of lasciviousness, committed against his minor daughter, AAA, from 1999 to 2001. The prosecution detailed several incidents where appellant, on different occasions, fondled AAA’s breasts, forced her to hold his penis, and performed acts of sexual intercourse or attempted penetration. In one instance, he threatened her with a bolo when she refused his advances. AAA eventually reported the abuses, leading to a medico-legal examination which revealed old, healed hymenal lacerations. The defense presented alibi, claiming appellant was elsewhere during the alleged incidents, and presented AAA’s teacher to state she had no school absences. Crucially, AAA later executed an Affidavit of Recantation, claiming she exaggerated the accusations and was prodded by her mother and grandmother, though she maintained that lascivious acts occurred.

ISSUE

The core issue is whether the Affidavit of Recantation should overturn AAA’s prior consistent testimony and the trial court’s findings of fact, thereby exonerating appellant of the crimes charged.

RULING

The Supreme Court affirmed the appellant’s conviction, as modified by the Court of Appeals. The Court held that a recantation is inherently unreliable and viewed with extreme suspicion. It is considered a dubious ground for overturning a final judgment, as it can easily be secured through coercion or monetary consideration. The judicial preference is for the original testimony given in open court under oath and subject to cross-examination. Here, AAA’s trial testimony was detailed, consistent, and credible, establishing the elements of the crimes beyond reasonable doubt. The Court found the recantation contradictory, as it admitted to lascivious acts while denying rape, yet the medical findings supported sexual abuse. The defense of alibi was weak and could not prevail over AAA’s positive identification. The CA correctly modified the penalties, reclassifying some convictions from acts of lasciviousness to rape under Article 266-A of the Revised Penal Code, as the acts constituted sexual intercourse through the partial insertion of the penis. The awards of damages were also increased in line with prevailing jurisprudence. The conviction stands, emphasizing that recantations do not automatically nullify a conviction based on credible trial testimony.