People v. Salazar
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: The case involves two counts of statutory rape allegedly committed by Demetrio Salazar against AAA, a 12-year-old girl, who was his stepdaughter. The first incident occurred on May 18, 1999, and the second on June 25, 1999. The prosecution alleged that Salazar, while intoxicated and with abuse of confidence, entered AAA's bedroom, used force and intimidation, and had sexual intercourse with her against her will. Salazar claimed alibi for the first incident, stating he was at his farm, and for the second, he claimed AAA was out watching a show. Procedural History: Informations for two counts of statutory rape were filed against Salazar on September 6, 1999. He pleaded not guilty and later escaped from detention. The trial commenced on July 27, 2000. AAA purportedly executed an Affidavit of Desistance on February 22, 2000, stating she was not raped, but later testified her mother forced her to sign it under threat. The Regional Trial Court (RTC) convicted Salazar of two counts of statutory rape and imposed the death penalty. The case was automatically reviewed by the Supreme Court, which then transferred it to the Court of Appeals (CA) per People v. Mateo. The CA affirmed the conviction with modification, reducing the penalty to reclusion perpetua and finding Salazar guilty of simple rape, not statutory rape, due to insufficient proof of AAA's age being under twelve. The Petition: Salazar appealed the CA's decision. He adopted his previous defenses, arguing the trial court erred in giving credence to prosecution witnesses and ignoring his defense, and that his guilt was not proven beyond reasonable doubt. The Supreme Court denied the appeal, holding that AAA's Affidavit of Desistance was unreliable and her testimony as a child victim deserved full weight. The Court found that while Salazar was the common-law husband of AAA's mother, this was not alleged in the information, thus he was guilty of simple rape, not qualified rape. The penalty of reclusion perpetua imposed by the CA was affirmed, with modifications to the damages awarded.
Issue(s)
Whether the Affidavit of Desistance executed by the victim should be given weight and cause the dismissal of the case. Whether the testimony of AAA, a child victim, should be given full weight and credence. Whether the accused-appellant is guilty of statutory rape or simple rape. Whether the penalty of reclusion perpetua is the proper penalty for the crime committed.
Ruling
The appeal is bereft of merit. The Supreme Court affirmed the decision of the Court of Appeals with modification, finding the accused-appellant guilty of two (2) counts of simple rape and ordering him to pay damages. The Court ruled that the Affidavit of Desistance cannot be given probative value. AAA's testimony as a child victim is given full weight and credence. While the Court found that AAA was 12 years old at the time of the incidents, this age does not qualify the crime as statutory rape, which requires the victim to be below 12 years old. Therefore, the crime is simple rape. The penalty of reclusion perpetua is affirmed, as the aggravating circumstance of being a stepfather or common-law husband was not alleged in the Information.
Ratio Decidendi
On the Affidavit of Desistance: The Court held that the Affidavit of Desistance executed by AAA cannot be given any weight or probative value. The CA correctly reasoned that the affidavit was not duly sworn to and that AAA testified her mother threatened her to execute it. Furthermore, jurisprudence consistently views recantations or affidavits of desistance with suspicion, as they can be easily secured through intimidation or monetary consideration, and are often repudiated later. The Court reiterated that an affidavit of desistance, once a case has been instituted, is not a ground for dismissal because jurisdiction has already been acquired by the court. The victim loses the right to decide whether the charge should proceed once the case is filed. On AAA's Testimony: The Court affirmed the trial court's decision to give full weight and credence to AAA's testimony. Unlike in People v. Domogoy, where the victim was an adult, AAA was a child victim. The Court has consistently ruled that the testimonies of child victims of rape are to be given full weight and credence, as a girl of tender years is unlikely to impute such a serious crime if it were not true. Her candid narration of events, especially when no ill will motivates her, bears the earmarks of credibility. Youth and immaturity are generally badges of truth, making it highly improbable for a young girl to concoct such a story if she were not seeking justice for a wrong committed against her. On Statutory Rape vs. Simple Rape: The Court clarified that while the RTC convicted Salazar of statutory rape, the CA correctly modified this to simple rape. For statutory rape, two elements must concur: carnal knowledge and the victim being below twelve (12) years old. Although the RTC found the first element present, the CA initially ruled that the victim's age was not sufficiently established. However, this Court, applying People v. Ramos, held that a baptismal certificate, coupled with testimony, is sufficient to prove age. Based on AAA's baptismal certificate (born April 10, 1987) and the date of the first rape (May 18, 1999), AAA was 12 years, 1 month, and 8 days old. Since she was not below 12 years old at the time of the commission of the crimes, the second element for statutory rape was not met, thus correctly classifying the offense as simple rape. On the Proper Penalty: The crime established is simple rape. At the time of the commission, the penalty for simple rape was reclusion perpetua. The RTC imposed the death penalty based on the qualifying circumstance that Salazar was the victim's stepfather and the victim was a minor. However, the Court found that no evidence was adduced to establish that Salazar was legally married to AAA's mother, thus he was not a legal stepfather. While he was the common-law husband of AAA's mother, this circumstance was not alleged in the Informations. To appreciate this as a qualifying circumstance would violate Salazar's constitutional right to be informed of the charges against him. Therefore, the qualifying circumstances were not properly alleged or proven, and the penalty for simple rape, reclusion perpetua, as imposed by the CA, is correct. The Court also awarded exemplary damages in line with prevailing jurisprudence.
Main Doctrine
While a baptismal certificate can be sufficient to prove the age of a victim in statutory rape cases, if the victim is found to be 12 years old at the time of the commission of the crime, the offense is simple rape, not statutory rape. The penalty for simple rape is reclusion perpetua, and the aggravating circumstance of the offender being a stepfather or common-law husband of the victim's mother, if not alleged in the information, cannot be appreciated.