Barqueros v. Court of Appeals
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Petitioner Cristeta Barqueros was accused of estafa under Article 315, par. 1[b] of the Revised Penal Code for allegedly receiving jewelry valued at P34,500.00 from Victoria T. Ong Oh to sell on consignment, with the condition that any overprice would be petitioner's commission. After the 10-day selling period elapsed without the proceeds being remitted or the jewelry returned, a complaint was filed. Procedural History: The Court of First Instance of Rizal found petitioner guilty beyond reasonable doubt and sentenced her to imprisonment and to indemnify the offended party. Petitioner appealed to the Intermediate Appellate Court (IAC). The Petition: Before filing her brief, petitioner moved for a new trial based on a newly discovered affidavit of desistance from the complainant, Victoria T. Ong Oh. The affidavit stated that the complainant had lost interest in the prosecution, was no longer willing to testify, and desired the case be dismissed, as she became convinced the accused was not totally to blame after hearing her explanation. The IAC deferred action on the motion, affirmed the lower court's decision, and denied petitioner's motion for reconsideration. Petitioner then filed a petition for review on certiorari with the Supreme Court, alleging the IAC erred in disregarding the affidavit of desistance.
Issue(s)
Whether the Intermediate Appellate Court erred in disregarding the affidavit of desistance executed by the complainant. Whether the alleged "special circumstances" presented by the petitioner were sufficient to warrant a new trial or overturn the conviction.
Ruling
The petition is denied. The Court affirmed the decision of the Intermediate Appellate Court, upholding the conviction of the petitioner for estafa.
Ratio Decidendi
On the issue of disregarding the affidavit of desistance: The Court reiterated its ruling in People vs. Manigbas, et al., emphasizing that affidavits of recantation or desistance made after conviction are generally unreliable. The Court stated that it is a dangerous rule to set aside solemn testimony given in open court simply because witnesses later change their minds, as this would place the investigation of truth at the mercy of the unscrupulous and lead to endless litigation. A new trial based on such retraction would not be justified unless there are special circumstances that, coupled with the retraction, raise a doubt as to the truth of the original testimony, and if that testimony is essential to the conviction such that its elimination would lead to a different conclusion. The Court found that the affidavit of desistance in this case did not meet these stringent requirements. On the sufficiency of "special circumstances" to warrant a new trial: The Court found that the "special circumstances" presented by the petitioner, namely her claims about selling the jewelry, allowing the complainant to redeem her own jewelry, delivering land titles, and the affidavit of merit, were merely her own uncorroborated and self-serving statements. Both the trial court and the IAC found these insufficient to overcome the prosecution's evidence. The Court also noted inaccuracies in the petitioner's presentation of these circumstances, such as misreferencing exhibits. Furthermore, the Court distinguished this case from Gomez vs. Intermediate Appellate Court, where an affidavit of desistance was given due weight, by highlighting that in Gomez, the complainant categorically exonerated the accused, whereas here, the complainant merely stated the accused was "not totally to blame." The Court also observed that the complainant's intention seemed to be to terminate the case rather than to exonerate the petitioner, as evidenced by her stated loss of interest and unwillingness to testify. The significant delay in the execution of the affidavit of desistance, more than seven years after the complaint and two years after the trial court's decision, further diminished its credibility.
Main Doctrine
Affidavits of recantation or desistance made after conviction are generally considered unreliable, especially when they involve a confession of perjury. Such affidavits will not warrant a new trial unless special circumstances, coupled with the retraction, raise a doubt as to the truth of the original testimony and such testimony is essential to the judgment of conviction.