[G.R. Nos. 70168-69. July 24, 1996]
RAFAEL T. MOLINA and REYNALDO SONEJA, petitioners, vs. THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES and the HON. INTERMEDIATE APPELLATE COURT, respondents.
X x x.
Affidavits of recantation made by a witness after the conviction of the accused is unreliable and deserves scant consideration (People vs. Torino, 11 SCRA 287, p. 293; People vs. Loste, 210 SCRA 614, p. 621.).
“x x x Merely because a witness says that what he had declared is false and that what he now says is true, is not sufficient ground for concluding that the previous testimony is false. No such reasoning has ever crystallized into a rule of credibility. The rule is that a witness may be impeached by a previous contradictory statement x x x not that a previous statement is presumed to be false merely because a witness now says that the same is not true. The jurisprudence of this Court has always been otherwise, i.e., that contradictory testimony given subsequently does not necessarily discredit the previous testimony if the contradictions are satisfactorily explained. (U.S. vs. Magtibay, 17 Phil. 417; U.S. vs. Briones, 28 Phil. 362; U.S. vs. Dasiip, 26 Phil. 503; U.S. vs. Lazaro, 34 Phil. 871)." [See: People vs. Ubina, 97 Phil. 515, pp. 525-526.].
Indeed, it is a dangerous rule to set aside a testimony which has been solemnly taken before a court of justice in an open and free trial and under conditions precisely sought to discourage and forestall falsehood simply because one of the witnesses who had given the testimony later on changed his mind. (People vs. Manigbas; 109 Phil. 469, p. 477). Such a rule will make solemn trials a mockery and place the investigation of the truth at the mercy of unscrupulous witnesses.( People vs. Ubina, supra; People vs. Manigbas, 109 Phil. 469; Reano vs. CA, 165 SCRA 525; de Guzman vs. IAC, 184 SCRA 128; People vs. Cruz, 208 SCRA 326; People vs. Mindac, 216 SCRA 558; People vs. Davatos, 229 SCRA 647; People vs. Juinio, 237 SCRA 826; Lopez vs. CA, 239 SCRA 562). Unless there be special circumstances which, coupled with the retraction of the witness, really raise doubt as to the truth of the testimony given by him at the trial and accepted by the trial judge, and only if such testimony is essential to the judgment of conviction, or its elimination would lead the trial judge to a different conclusion, an acquittal of the accused based on such a retraction would not be justified. (People vs. Manigbas, supra, p. 478).
This Court has always looked with disfavor upon retraction of testimonies previously given in court. (People vs. Mindac, supra; Lopez vs. CA, supra; People vs. Juinio, supra; People vs. Logronio, 214 SCRA 519; People vs. del Pilar, 188 SCRA 37; People vs. Aldeguer, 184 SCRA 1; People vs. Navasca, 76 SCRA 70).The asserted motives for the repudiation are commonly held suspect, and the veracity of the statements made in the affidavit of repudiation are frequently and deservedly subject to serious doubt. (People vs. Logronio, supra; People vs. Dorado, 30 SCRA 53).
Such being the experience of this court, we should proceed with extreme caution and judicial prudence in according any probative value to affidavits of recantation in the light of the sad reality that the same can be easily secured from poor and ignorant witnesses for some financial consideration (People vs. Liwag, 225 SCRA 46; People vs. Mangulabnan, 200 SCRA 611; People vs. Bernardo, 220 SCRA 31; People vs. Mindac, supra; de Guzman vs. IAC, supra; People vs. Clamor, 198 SCRA 642; People vs. Juinio, supra; People vs. Galicia, 123 SCRA 550; Flores vs. People, 211 SCRA 622) or through intimidation. (Lopez vs. CA, supra, 565). Especially when the affidavit of retraction is executed by a prosecution witness after the judgment of conviction has already been rendered, "it is too late in the day for his recantation without portraying himself as a liar." (People vs. Loste, 210 SCRA 614, p. 621). At most, the retraction is an afterthought which should not be given probative value. (Flores vs. People, supra, p. 630; People vs. Junio, supra, p. 834).
Mere retraction by a prosecution witness does not necessarily vitiate the original testimony if credible. (People vs. Dulay, 217 SCRA 103, p. 118; People vs. de la Cerna, 21 SCRA 569). The rule is settled that in cases where previous testimony is retracted and a subsequent different, if not contrary, testimony is made by the same witness, the test to decide which testimony to believe is one of comparison coupled with the application of the general rules of evidence. (People vs. Mindac, 216 SCRA 558; Lopez vs. CA, 239 SCRA 562; Reano vs. CA, 165 SCRA 525; People vs. Cruz, 208 SCRA 326). A testimony solemnly given in court should not be set aside and disregarded lightly, and before this can be done, both the previous testimony and the subsequent one should be carefully compared and juxtaposed, the circumstances under which each was made, carefully and keenly scrutinized, and the reasons or motives for the change, discriminatingly analyzed. (People vs. Cruz, supra; Lopez vs. CA, supra). The unreliable character of the affidavit of recantation executed by a complaining witness is also shown by the incredulity of the fact that after going through the burdensome process of reporting to and/or having the accused arrested by the law enforcers, executing a criminal complaint-affidavit against the accused, attending trial and testifying against the accused, the said complaining witness would later on declare that all the foregoing is actually a farce and the truth is now what he says it to be in his affidavit of recantation. (Flores vs. People, 211 SCRA 622; People vs. Juinio, 237 SCRA 826). And in situations, like the instant case, where testimony is recanted by an affidavit subsequently executed by the recanting witness, we are properly guided by the well-settled rules that an affidavit is hearsay unless the affiant is presented on the witness stand (People vs. Villeza, 127 SCRA 349; People vs. Mindac, 216 SCRA 558) and that affidavits taken ex-parte are generally considered inferior to the testimony given in open court. (People vs. Loveria, 187 SCRA 47; People vs. Riego, 189 SCRA 445; People vs. Mindac, supra).
X x x.
