The testimony of a witness used in filing a case in court but was recanted during the trial of the case should be treated with caution by trial court judges, the Supreme Court (SC) said.
In a decision written by Associate Justice Antonio T. Kho Jr., the SC said that taking back a statement does not automatically invalidate or discredit the testimony, especially when the original account is credible.
Recanted testimonies should be scrutinized strictly particularly in rape and sexual abuse cases, the SC said.
The SC decision in GR No. 277728 that was made public on Thursday, Feb. 12, affirmed the conviction of a father for lascivious conduct under Republic Act No. 7610, the Special Protection of Children Against Abuse, Exploitation and Discrimination Act, for sexually abusing his 14-year-old daughter.
The names of the parties in the case were redacted by the SC in its decision.
A summary of the decision issued by the SC’s Office of the Spokesperson stated that the victim and her nine-year-old brother were sleeping beside their father on a mattress when, around midnight, she woke up to find his father trying to remove her underwear.
The father touched her private parts and tried to have sex with her, but she managed to cover herself with her hands and keep her legs crossed.
When her brother suddenly moved, the father stopped and then threatened her not to tell anyone, fearing he would go to jail.
The next day, the victim told her teacher, who informed the girl’s mother who was then working in Singapore. The teacher brought the child to the police to report the incident and undergo a medico-legal examination.
The father was charged with rape before the regional trial court (RTC).
During the trial, the victim testified about the abuse. However, when the defense later called her to the stand, she withdrew her testimony.
She claimed she invented the charges because her father was too strict, and she did not realize how serious her accusations were.
She insisted she was not forced to take back her testimony and only wanted to help her father and “put things in order so that everyone would have peace.”
The RTC convicted the father of qualified rape, disregarding her change in testimony because her original account was detailed and straightforward.
She had wept uncontrollably during her testimony, clearly showing she had suffered greatly in the hands of her own father.
On appeal, the Court of Appeals (CA) reduced the crime to lascivious conduct under RA 7610 because the prosecution failed to prove there was sexual intercourse.
The SC affirmed the CA’s ruling.
In this case, while sexual abuse was proven, sexual intercourse was not, it said.
With its ruling, the SC sentenced the father to reclusion perpetua, or up to 40 years in prison, and ordered to pay the victim P225,000 in damages. (Rey Panaligan)
