G.R. No. 95753 February 13, 1992
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. RUBEN LIM Y ORTIZ, accused-appellant.

FACTS

The accused-appellant, Ruben Lim, was convicted of rape by the Regional Trial Court and sentenced to reclusion perpetua. The prosecution established that on December 5, 1986, in Quezon City, Lim raped his cousin, Delailah Lim y Garcia. Delailah was staying in his house to care for it while the family attended a wake. In the early morning, Lim entered her room, covered her mouth, pulled her hair, and poked a .38 caliber revolver at her neck while threatening to kill her and her family if she resisted. He then forcibly had carnal knowledge with her.
After the incident, Delailah did not immediately report the rape due to fear of the accused’s threats. She later discovered she was pregnant, and the accused, with the aid of his sister, pressured her into undergoing an abortion in June 1987. She only filed a complaint in October 1987 after learning Lim was detained on another charge. During the pendency of the case and while Lim was at large, Delailah and her mother executed affidavits of desistance, which they later claimed were made under duress.

ISSUE

The core issue is whether the affidavits of desistance executed by the complainant and her mother warrant the dismissal of the rape case and negate the conviction.

RULING

The Supreme Court affirmed the conviction and dismissed the appeal. The Court ruled that the affidavits of desistance do not invalidate the prosecution’s case or automatically result in acquittal. The retraction was deemed unreliable as it was executed under duress. This conclusion was supported by a motion filed by the accused’s own counsel in a separate case, which detailed death threats made by the accused against the counsel for supposedly helping Delailah. This corroborated the claim of coercion surrounding the affidavits.
Furthermore, the Court emphasized the legal principle that for a pardon or desistance by the victim to warrant dismissal, it must be made prior to the institution of the criminal action. The criminal information for rape was filed on February 24, 1988, while the affidavits of desistance were executed on March 1, 1988, making them legally inconsequential for dismissal. The Court found the prosecution’s evidence of rape—through the credible testimony of the victim detailing force, intimidation, and the use of a firearm—to be strong and unshaken. The appellant’s arguments suggesting consensual sex were dismissed as mere conjectures not proven during trial.