GR 91131; (February, 1991) (Digest)
G.R. No. 91131; February 19, 1991
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. ROMEO SOLIAO, accused-appellant.
FACTS
The accused-appellant, Romeo Soliao, was convicted of rape by the Regional Trial Court of Tagum and sentenced to reclusion perpetua. The victim, Loida Figueroa, a 19-year-old former salesgirl in Soliao’s store, testified that on September 19, 1984, Soliao lured her to a lodging house in Tagum under the pretext of paying her unpaid wages. Once inside a room, he drew a hunting knife, threatened her, and forcibly had sexual intercourse with her despite her resistance. He detained her overnight and released her the next morning with a threat against reporting the incident. Loida initially concealed the rape from her strict father out of fear but later confided in her sister. A complaint was subsequently filed with the assistance of the Citizens Legal Assistance Office.
During the pendency of the case, Loida was deceived into signing an Affidavit of Desistance after being falsely told her mother was jailed due to a conflict with Soliao’s wife. She later formally withdrew this affidavit. After the trial court’s conviction, Soliao submitted to the Supreme Court a second Affidavit of Desistance from Loida, dated May 4, 1990, wherein she stated she was partly to blame and was pardoning him, praying for the dismissal of the case.
ISSUE
Whether the Affidavit of Desistance submitted after conviction can nullify the judgment of conviction for rape.
RULING
The Supreme Court affirmed the conviction. The Court found the complainant’s testimony credible, straightforward, and consistent. The force and intimidation employed by Soliao, evidenced by the use of a hunting knife and threats, were sufficient to establish rape. The defense of sweetheart theory was rejected for lack of corroborative evidence.
Regarding the Affidavit of Desistance, the Court ruled it has no probative value to overturn the conviction. The language of the second affidavit mirrored the first one obtained through deception, and the Court viewed it as a product of the accused’s family exploiting the victim’s poverty and ignorance. Critically, the law holds that in crimes like rape, the real offended party is the State. Once a criminal action is instituted, tried, and decided, control is removed from the victim. A retraction or pardon is only effective if made prior to the filing of the criminal case. Therefore, the post-conviction affidavit is ineffectual to nullify the judgment. The decision of the trial court was affirmed in toto.