Dear PAO,
My cousin was accused and subsequently charged with rape by a woman he briefly dated. After the prosecution had rested its case, the woman retracted her testimony and executed an Affidavit of Desistance, alleging that she could not, in good conscience, proceed with the trial because she only filed the case after being coerced by her parents, who did not approve of their relationship. Does this mean that the criminal case against my cousin will soon be dismissed based on this?
Pickly
Dear Pickly,
It is well-settled in our jurisdiction that “in criminal cases where the offended party is the State, the interest of the private complainant or the private offended party is limited to the civil liability. Thus, in the prosecution of the offense, the complainant’s role is limited to that of a witness for the prosecution” (People of the Philippines vs. Hon. Pedro T. Santiago, G.R. No. L-80778, June 20, 1989, Ponente: Honorable Associate Justice Emilio A. Gancayco).
Relative thereto, it is the duty of the prosecution to establish the guilt of the accused for the offense charged beyond reasonable doubt. This means that the prosecution has the duty to prove each and every element of the crime charged in the information to warrant a finding of guilt for that crime or for any other crime necessarily included therein.
This authority of public prosecutors to prosecute criminal actions is derived from Section 5, Rule 110 of the Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure, as amended by A.M. No. 02-2-07-SC issued by the Supreme Court on April 10, 2002, which explicitly provides:
“Sec. 5. Who must prosecute criminal action. - All criminal actions either commenced by complaint or by information shall be prosecuted under the direction and control of a public prosecutor. In case of heavy work schedule of the public prosecutor or in the event of lack of public prosecutors, the private prosecutor may be authorized in writing by the Chief of the Prosecution Office or the Regional State Prosecutor to prosecute the case subject to the approval of the court. Once so authorized to prosecute the criminal action, the private prosecutor shall continue to prosecute the case up to end of the trial even in the absence of a public prosecutor, unless the authority is revoked or otherwise withdrawn. xxx”
On a distinct but related matter, the reclassification of rape from a crime against chastity into one against persons under Title VIII of the Revised Penal Code, by virtue of the Republic Act (RA) 8353, otherwise known as the Anti-Rape Law of 1997, had effectively placed rape, among other offenses, under the banner of public crimes. Accordingly, a prosecution for the crime of rape may proceed with or without the victim’s participation, and/or notwithstanding the retraction of the victim’s testimony, or execution of Affidavit of Desistance. This is precisely the legislative intent behind the enactment of RA 8353 — “to allow the prosecution of such cases even without the complaint of the offended party, and to prevent extinguishment of criminal liability in such cases through express pardon by the offended party.” (People of the Philippines vs. Glenn G. Barrera, G.R. No. 230549, December 01, 2020, Ponente: Associate Justice Samuel H. Gaerlan)
This means that even without the participation of the victim or the woman, your cousin briefly dated, or despite her subsequent retraction of the testimony earlier given and eventual execution of Affidavit of Desistance, the case against your cousin may proceed. After all, the Supreme Court, speaking through Honorable Chief Justice Diosdado M. Peralta, elucidated that mere retraction by a prosecution witness does not necessarily vitiate her original testimony, especially when the “testimony is clear, consistent and credible to establish the crime beyond reasonable doubt. (People of the Philippines vs. Napoleon B. Bensurto, Jr., G.R. No. 216061, December 07, 2016, Ponente: Honorable Chief Justice Diosdado M. Peralta)
We hope that we were able to answer your queries. This advice is solely based on the facts you have narrated and our appreciation of the same. Our opinion may vary when other facts are changed or elaborated.
Thank you for your trust and support.
Editor’s note: Dear PAO is a daily column of the Public Attorney’s Office. Questions for Chief Acosta may be sent to dearpao@manilatimes.net
