People v. Lamsen
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Accused-appellants P/Supt. Artemio E. Lamsen, PO2 Anthony D. Abulencia, and SPO1 Wilfredo L. Ramos were convicted of robbery with homicide and sentenced to reclusion perpetua. They were ordered to jointly and severally pay damages to the heirs of victims Fernando Sy and Arturo Mariado, as well as Equitable PCI Bank. Procedural History: The accused-appellants filed Motions for Reconsideration and a Motion for New Trial Due to Newly Discovered Evidence, assailing the Court's Resolution dated February 20, 2013, which upheld their conviction. The Petition: The accused-appellants argued that they obtained affidavits from prosecution witnesses Amel F. Reyes and Domingo Marcelo. These witnesses claimed their testimonies implicating the accused-appellants were made under duress and out of fear, and that they did not actually see the commission of the crime.
Issue(s)
Whether the affidavits of recantation from prosecution witnesses Amel F. Reyes and Domingo Marcelo warrant a new trial or reconsideration of the conviction. Whether the Court's Resolution dated February 20, 2013, upholding the conviction of the accused-appellants for robbery with homicide, should be reconsidered.
Ruling
The Court denied with finality the Motions for Reconsideration and the Motion for New Trial filed by the accused-appellants, affirming its Resolution dated February 20, 2013, which upheld their conviction for robbery with homicide.
Ratio Decidendi
On the issue of recantation and newly discovered evidence: The Court held that the affidavits of recantation from prosecution witnesses Reyes and Marcelo partake of a recantation, which is viewed with suspicion and reservation. It is settled that an affidavit of desistance made by a witness after conviction is not reliable and deserves only scant attention. The rationale is that such affidavits can easily be secured through intimidation or monetary consideration. Recanted testimony is exceedingly unreliable, and only when special circumstances exist that raise doubts as to the truth of the original testimony can retractions be considered. The Court cited Regidor, Jr. v. People and Firaza v. People to emphasize that setting aside solemn testimonies given in open court simply because a witness later changes their mind would make trials a mockery. The Court found no sufficient reason to disturb its previous resolution, noting that the trial court gave great weight to the collective statements of the prosecution witnesses, including Reyes and Marcelo, whose testimonies were candid, straightforward, categorical, and withstood extensive cross-examination. The recantations, executed more than a decade after the testimonies were given and after the conviction was upheld, were seen as a last-minute attempt to save the accused-appellants from punishment. On the reconsideration of the previous resolution: The Court stated that it need not discuss the other issues raised as they were already exhaustively passed upon in its Resolution dated February 20, 2013. Therefore, the previous resolution upholding the conviction of the accused-appellants for robbery with homicide was affirmed.
Main Doctrine
Recantations of testimonies previously given in court are viewed with suspicion and reservation, especially when executed after a judgment of conviction, and are generally given scant attention unless special circumstances exist that cast doubt on the original testimony.