SPECIAL THIRD DIVISION
[G.R. No. 228655. March 14, 2018.]
JUANITO A. BONGON, JR., petitioner,vs. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, respondent.
NOTICE
Sirs/Mesdames :
Please take notice that the Court, Third Division, issued a Resolution datedMarch 14, 2018, which reads as follows: HTcADC
"G.R. No. 228655 (Juanito A. Bongon, Jr. v. People of the Philippines). — The Court NOTES:
(1) the Office of the Solicitor General's (OSG) comment on petitioner's motion for reconsideration and new trial of the Resolution of February 15, 2017 which denied the petition for review on certiorari; and
(2) petitioner's reply ad cautelam to said OSG's comment.
We resolve petitioner's motion for reconsideration and new trial 1 seeking a reconsideration and reversal of our Resolution 2 dated February 15, 2017 which upheld the conviction of Juanito A. Bongon, Jr. (petitioner) and Geronimo Belando (Geronimo) for the crime of homicide.
In his motion, petitioner states that on April 3, 2017, the prosecution's sole eyewitness, Rosalie N. Paglinawan (Rosalie), executed a Sinumpaang Salaysay3 recanting her testimony during the trial and clarifying that her testimony on petitioner's participation was a mistake as it was only Geronimo who stabbed the victim. Rosalie claimed in her Sinumpaang Salaysay that she was constrained to implicate petitioner because the victim's father pleaded with her to also point to petitioner as perpetrator of the crime. 4 Thus, petitioner prayed that we reinstate the petition and issue an order remanding the case to the court a quo for new trial to ascertain the genuineness, veracity, and voluntariness of Rosalie's recantation. 5
We deny petitioner's motion.
Rosalie's Sinumpaang Salaysay partakes of a recantation which is aimed to repudiate her earlier testimony given during trial. As a rule, a recantation or an affidavit of desistance is viewed with suspicion and reservation. 6 In People v. Lamsen, 7 we explained the reason for this rule:
The Court looks with disfavor upon retractions of testimonies previously given in court. It is settled that an affidavit of desistance made by a witness after conviction of the accused is not reliable, and deserves only scant attention. The rationale for the rule is obvious: affidavits of retraction can easily be secured from witnesses, usually through intimidation or for a monetary consideration. Recanted testimony is exceedingly unreliable. There is always the probability that it will later be repudiated. Only when there exist special circumstances in the case which when coupled with the retraction raise doubts as to the truth of the testimony or statement given, can retractions be considered and upheld. x x x 8 (Citations omitted.)
In People v. Lamsen, two of the prosecution witnesses recanted their testimonies after we issued our Resolution dated February 20, 2013 upholding the accused-appellants' conviction of the crime of robbery with homicide. We held that their recantations fail to cast doubt to the truth and veracity of their earlier testimonies, and to the collective statements of all of the prosecution witnesses as a whole. 9
More, a recantation executed after the lapse of a considerable amount of time makes the recantation all the more suspect. In People v. Dalabajan, 10 where the lone eyewitness executed an affidavit recanting his testimony four years after and submitted only after the promulgation of the decision, we concluded that the retraction is an afterthought and should not be given probative value. We held:
It is highly doubtful that the eyewitness Dela Cruz, after going through the trouble of being sworn in, testifying in open court, and being subjected to a rigid cross-examination by the defense counsel, wherein he unhesitatingly pointed to the accused-appellants as the perpetrators of the crime, would, after four years, suddenly turn around and reverse himself. We have previously held that mere retraction by a prosecution witness does not necessarily vitiate the original testimony if credible. x x x 11 (Citation omitted.)
We have also held that an affidavit of desistance does not constitute newly discovered evidence which would warrant the remand of the case to the lower court for new trial. 12
We apply these principles and hold that given the circumstances, a new trial is not availing in this case.
Certainly, it is highly suspicious and questionable that Rosalie, after executing an affidavit, going through the trouble of being sworn in, testifying in open court and identifying petitioner as the one who stabbed the victim on his back, and subjecting herself to the rigors of trial and being cross-examined by the defense counsel would, eight years later and after a judgment of conviction has already been rendered by the trial court and affirmed by the CA and this Court, suddenly turn around and reverse herself. Her retraction appears to be nothing but a mere afterthought and a last ditch effort on the part of petitioner to exculpate himself from criminal liability. We reiterate: aScITE
This Court has always looked with disfavor upon retraction of testimonies previously given in court. 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.
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 or through intimidation. 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." At most, the retraction is an afterthought which should not be given probative value. 13 (Citations omitted.)
WHEREFORE, we DENY petitioner's motion for reconsideration and new trial. Accordingly, the Court's Resolution dated February 15, 2017 is AFFIRMED.
SO ORDERED."
(Caguioa, J., designated as additional Member per Special Order No. 2417 dated January 4, 2017.)
Very truly yours,
(SGD.) WILFREDO V. LAPITANDivision Clerk of Court
Footnotes
1.Rollo, pp. 338-358.
2.Id. at 336-337.
3.Id. at 352-355.
4.Id. at 340-342.
5.Id. at 349-350.
6.People v. Ramirez, Jr., G.R. Nos. 150079-80, June 10, 2004, 431 SCRA 666, 676.
7. G.R. No. 198338, November 13, 2013, 709 SCRA 522.
8.Id. at 524-525.
9.Id. at 527.
10. G.R. No. 105668, October 16, 1997, 280 SCRA 696.
11.Id. at 706-707.
12. Id. at 707-708.
13. Molina v. People, G.R. Nos. 70168-69, July 24, 1996, 259 SCRA 138, 158-159.