Case Digest: PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v . FREDDIE FONTANILLA 410 SCRA 446 (2003)

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v . FREDDIE FONTANILLA 410 SCRA 446 (2003)

Appellant Freddie Fontanilla was charged with two counts of rape for allegedly raping his fourteen year old step daughter on two different occasions. During the hearing, the private complainant testified regarding the rape(s) committed by Fontanilla. The Regional Trial Court of Urdaneta City found Fontanilla guilty of the crime of rape and imposed upon him the penalty of death. Subsequently, after the RTC rendered its decision private complainant executed an affidavit of recantation stating that Fontanilla never raped her. Taking advantage of this new development, Fontanilla then filed a Motion for New Trial. The court however denied the same.

ISSUE:

Whether or not the RTC erred in finding Fontanilla guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of rape despite the recantation made by the complainant.

HELD:

As for the trial court‘s denial of Fontanilla‘s motion for new trial arising from private complainant‘s affidavit of recantation: Said affidavit cannot qualify as newly discovered evidence to justify a new trial, the following requisites for which, and these must concur, are not present: (a) the evidence was discovered after the trial; (b) such evidence could not have been discovered and produced at the trial even with the exercise of reasonable diligence; and (c) such evidence is material, not merely cumulative, corroborative, or impeaching, and is of such weight that, if admitted, would probably change the judgment. Besides, affidavits of retraction of testimonies are generally looked with disfavor because there is always the probability that they may later be repudiated. The unreliable character of this document is shown by the fact that it is quite incredible that after going through the process of having Fontanilla arrested by the police, positively identifying him as the person who raped her, enduring the humiliation of a physical examination of her private parts, and then repeating her accusations in open court by recounting her anguish, private complainant would suddenly turn around and declare that ―after a careful deliberation over the case, [she] find[s] that the same does not merit or warrant criminal prosecution.