People v. Somodio
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Two criminal complaints were filed against Wilfredo Somodio. Criminal Case No. 98-286 alleged statutory rape for an incident in March 1995 when the victim, Maylene V. Co, was 11 years old, and Criminal Case No. 98-287 alleged rape for an incident in September 1997 when Maylene was 14 years old. Maylene testified that in March 1995, appellant lured her to his house, dragged her inside, removed her clothes, and had sexual intercourse with her, causing pain and bleeding. She initially told her mother, Aurora, who brought her to the hospital, and a medical certificate noted healed lacerations. Maylene begged her mother not to report it due to shame and fear of her father's temper. In 1997, appellant allegedly coerced Maylene into further sexual acts by threatening to reveal the 1995 incident. Maylene eventually confessed to her aunt, Elsie, who informed her father, leading to another examination and the filing of a complaint. Appellant denied the charges, claiming Maylene had relationships with others and that he only courted her in March 1997. He presented an affidavit of desistance, claiming she filed the complaint due to her parents' insistence, and testified that Maylene voluntarily entered his room in March 1997 and initiated sexual contact. Procedural History: The Regional Trial Court (RTC) acquitted appellant in Criminal Case No. 98-287 (rape of a 14-year-old), finding the act consensual as they were sweethearts and no force or intimidation was present. However, in Criminal Case No. 98-286 (statutory rape of an 11-year-old), the RTC found appellant guilty, holding that sex with a person under 12 years old constitutes statutory rape regardless of consent or force. The RTC also found Maylene's affidavit of desistance to be executed under duress and thus without probative value. The Petition: Appellant appealed his conviction in Criminal Case No. 98-286, assigning errors regarding the trial court's credibility assessment of Maylene and her mother, and its disregard of the affidavit of desistance.
Issue(s)
Whether the trial court erred in giving credibility to the testimonies of Maylene V. Co and her mother regarding the sexual intercourse in March 1995. Whether the trial court erred in not giving credence to the "Pagbawi ng Salaysay" (affidavit of desistance) executed by Maylene V. Co. Whether the appellant is guilty beyond reasonable doubt of statutory rape.
Ruling
The Supreme Court affirmed the conviction of Wilfredo Somodio for statutory rape in Criminal Case No. 98-286, sentencing him to suffer the penalty of reclusion perpetua. The Court modified the award of damages, granting an additional P50,000 as moral damages, in addition to the P50,000 civil indemnity awarded by the trial court.
Ratio Decidendi
On the credibility of Maylene V. Co and her mother: The Court held that the trial court's evaluation of testimonial evidence is accorded great respect, as the trial judge had the opportunity to observe the witnesses' demeanor. The Court found Maylene's testimony clear, unwavering, and straightforward. The delay in reporting the 1995 incident was satisfactorily explained by Maylene's shame and fear of her father's temper, and her mother's desire to protect her. The Court noted that the medical certificate corroborated Maylene's claim of prior sexual intercourse, as it indicated healed hymenal lacerations. The Court found it unnatural for a mother to use her child as a tool of malice, and thus believed Aurora's motivation was to seek justice for her daughter's defilement. The Court also dismissed the appellant's contention that Maylene's narration of events was incredible due to her age, stating that children of sound mind can be observant and articulate their experiences accurately. On the "Pagbawi ng Salaysay" (affidavit of desistance): The Court agreed with the trial court that the affidavit of desistance had no probative value. The circumstances surrounding its execution cast doubt on its voluntariness, as Maylene was accompanied by individuals associated with the appellant, and it was not shown that the public prosecutor ascertained the voluntariness of her statement in a private setting. Maylene's testimony in court revealed that the document was not read or explained to her before she signed it, and she signed it because she was told to do so by Atty. Maniti and others present. The Court reiterated that affidavits taken ex-parte and affidavits of recantation are generally considered unreliable, especially when executed by minors under duress or intimidation. The Court found that Maylene's categorical denunciation of the affidavit in open court was an earmark of her credibility. On the guilt of the appellant for statutory rape: The Court affirmed the trial court's finding that the appellant committed statutory rape. The elements of statutory rape, as defined under Article 335 of the Revised Penal Code, are (1) that the accused had carnal knowledge of a woman, and (2) that the woman is below 12 years of age. The Court found it undisputed that Maylene was 11 years old in March 1995, as evidenced by her birth certificate. Maylene's testimony clearly established that sexual intercourse occurred. The Court emphasized that for statutory rape, proof of force and consent is immaterial because the absence of free consent is presumed when the victim is below 12 years old. The medical findings corroborated the fact of prior sexual intercourse, and Maylene's consistent testimony, despite her young age, was found credible.
Main Doctrine
Sexual intercourse with a girl below 12 years old constitutes statutory rape, regardless of force or consent, and the elements are carnal knowledge and the victim being under 12 years of age. Medical findings corroborating the victim's testimony are given weight, and delay in reporting is excused if satisfactorily explained. Affidavits of desistance executed by minors under duress or intimidation are given no probative value.