People vs. Dela Cerna

G.R. No. 136899-904
A father convicted of raping his daughter over years; desistance affidavit deemed unreliable; death penalty reduced due to insufficient proof of victim's minority.

Case Summary (G.R. No. 136899-904)

Factual Background

AAA testified that sexual abuse by accused commenced when she was seven years old and recounted repeated incidents occurring on January 15, 1989; December 26, 1993; March 3, 1996; August 25, 1996; February 10, 1997; and March 5, 1997. Her testimony described forcible undressing, insertion of the accused's penis into her vagina, threats and admonitions not to reveal the acts, and fear aroused by prior physical violence inflicted by the accused upon her mother and by occasional display of a gun.

Reporting and Social Work Intervention

AAA eventually disclosed the abuse to two school friends, who in turn brought the matter to the attention of a parent and to a social worker. The Department of Social Welfare and Development received AAA and her mother on March 21, 1997, and a social worker recorded AAA's statement that she had been sexually abused by her father since age seven.

Medical Examination

Dr. Aster Khusravibabadi of the Cebu City Medical Center examined AAA on March 21, 1997 and found old healed hymenal lacerations at the five o’clock and six o’clock positions and an introitus that admitted two fingers with ease. These findings were received in evidence and formed part of the prosecution's case.

Criminal Complaints, Arraignment and Joint Trial

Six separate complaints charging rape, each referring to the differing dates, were filed on May 16, 1997. Accused pleaded not guilty upon arraignment, and the cases were tried jointly. AAA testified at trial and recounted the instances of rape in detail. Accused exercised his constitutional right to remain silent and did not testify.

Defense Evidence: Affidavit of Desistance

For the defense, AAA executed an affidavit of desistance dated July 3, 1998 and offered in evidence on September 15, 1998. The affidavit stated that she no longer wished to pursue the complaints, that her earlier complaints were not voluntary but influenced by others, and that she had forgiven her father in order to secure harmony for her family. At trial AAA explained that her motive for the affidavit was the extreme poverty and hardship faced by her mother and siblings.

Trial Court Judgment

On November 29, 1998 the trial court found accused guilty beyond reasonable doubt of six counts of rape and imposed the penalty of reclusion perpetua for the third and sixth complaints and the penalty of death for the first, second, fourth and fifth complaints pursuant to the Death Penalty Law (R.A. No. 7659). The trial court ordered payment of P50,000 as damages in each of the six cases and forwarded the record to the Supreme Court for automatic review.

Appellate Issue and Parties' Contentions

Accused appealed on the ground that the evidence was insufficient to sustain conviction and relied principally upon the affidavit of desistance to create reasonable doubt. The prosecution maintained that AAA’s original testimony, the social worker’s report and the medical findings were credible and that the affidavit of desistance was unreliable and executed after the criminal action had been instituted.

The Court's Assessment of the Affidavit of Desistance

The Court examined the affidavit of desistance in light of established jurisprudence and concluded that the affidavit did not retract the essential allegations of rape nor did it present exculpatory facts. The Court observed that the desistance was executed after the filing of the complaints and after AAA had testified and that such afterthoughts ordinarily carry little persuasive weight because they may be induced by intimidation, monetary consideration or other pressures. The Court found AAA’s primary testimony to be positive, credible and convincing and declined to treat the later affidavit as dispositive of criminal liability.

Applicable Law on Private Crimes and Effect of Pardon

Because the sexual assaults began and in part occurred before the effectivity of R.A. No. 8353 (Anti-Rape Law of 1997), the Court applied the pre-existing law treating rape as a private crime governed by Art. 344, Revised Penal Code. The Court reiterated that under Article 344 pardon or marriage by the offended party may extinguish criminal liability only if extended prior to institution of the criminal action; a pardon executed after filing of the complaint does not extinguish the State's right to prosecute.

Proof of Minority and the Death Penalty

The Court considered the imposition of the death penalty under Art. 335, Revised Penal Code, as amended by Section 11 of R.A. No. 7659, which prescribes death when rape of a victim under eighteen years of age is committed by her parent. The Court reiterated settled doctrine, exemplified in People v. Javier, that the victim's minority and the qualifying relationship must not only be alleged in the information but must be proven beyond reasonable doubt at trial. The Court found that the prosecution offered no independent documentary evidence of AAA's age and that AAA's casual statement of birt

...continue reading