G.R. No. L-41700 August 30, 1982
THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. RICARTE SIBAYAN, accused-appellant.

FACTS

The accused-appellant, Ricarte Sibayan, along with Jecris Taqueban, was convicted by the Court of First Instance of Ilocos Sur for the crime of rape against Juanita Sagorsor and sentenced to reclusion perpetua. Taqueban withdrew his appeal. The prosecution’s evidence established that on January 7, 1973, the 15-year-old complainant was walking along a mountain trail in Sigay, Ilocos Sur, when she was accosted by Sibayan and Taqueban. They followed her, held her hands, threw her to the ground, and successively had carnal knowledge of her through force and intimidation. A medical examination later confirmed a hymenal laceration consistent with recent sexual intercourse.
The appellant denied the rape and alternatively claimed that the complainant had pardoned the offenders prior to the filing of the criminal complaint. He pointed to proceedings before the municipal mayor and a judge where amicable settlement was discussed. Testimony from a barrio captain indicated that relatives of the accused approached the victim’s father to beg for mercy, but the father refused any amicable settlement. The victim herself testified that she never agreed to settle and explicitly told the judge she wanted the accused to die.

ISSUE

The sole issue is the credibility of witnesses, specifically whether the prosecution proved the crime of rape beyond reasonable doubt and whether the appellant’s claim of pardon is valid.

RULING

The Supreme Court affirmed the conviction. On the main charge, the Court upheld the trial court’s findings on credibility. The well-settled rule is that appellate courts generally will not disturb the factual findings of the trial court, which had the direct opportunity to observe the witnesses’ demeanor and manner of testifying, unless it overlooked material facts. No such oversight was found; the trial court’s conclusion that Juanita Sagorsor was raped by Sibayan was supported by her consistent testimony and the medical certificate.
Regarding the claim of pardon, the Court found it devoid of merit. A pardon in criminal cases, to extinguish criminal liability, must be expressly granted by the offended party before the institution of the criminal prosecution. The evidence clearly showed that while there were attempts by the accused’s relatives to seek an amicable settlement, these were flatly rejected by the victim and her father. The victim’s statement to the judge that she wanted the accused to die was a clear manifestation of her unwavering intent to prosecute. Therefore, no pardon was ever validly extended. The appealed judgment was affirmed in toto.