In the case of People v. Amban, the Supreme Court affirmed the conviction of a father for raping his 12-year-old daughter, despite her recantation of the original testimony. The court emphasized that a mere retraction by a witness does not automatically invalidate their initial statements, especially when the trial court finds the original testimony more credible. This decision highlights the judiciary’s role in evaluating witness credibility and protecting vulnerable victims in cases of familial abuse.

A Father’s Betrayal: Can a Daughter’s Change of Heart Undo Justice?

The case revolves around Loreto Amban, who was found guilty by the Regional Trial Court of Bacolod City for the rape of his daughter, Madelyn. The initial complaint filed on June 30, 1997, detailed an incident from October 21, 1995, where Loreto allegedly used violence to rape Madelyn, who was then 12 years old. Madelyn’s testimony supported this claim, recounting the traumatic event and subsequent acts of molestation by her father. However, during the trial, Madelyn recanted her testimony, claiming she fabricated the rape accusation out of anger for being physically disciplined by her father.

The central legal question before the Supreme Court was whether Madelyn’s recantation should lead to Loreto Amban’s acquittal. The defense argued that the recantation nullified Madelyn’s initial accusations, thus exonerating Loreto from the crime of rape. The prosecution, however, maintained that the original testimony was more credible, supported by medical evidence and the circumstances surrounding the case. The resolution of this issue hinged on the evaluation of witness credibility and the weight given to a recanted testimony in the context of a sensitive crime.

The Supreme Court anchored its decision on the principle that a simple retraction does not automatically discredit a witness’s original testimony. Citing People vs. Ubina, the Court emphasized the need for a thorough comparison of both testimonies and a careful scrutiny of the circumstances and motives behind the change.

“The rule is that a witness may be impeached by a previous contradictory statement [now Rule 132, section 11]; not that a previous statement is presumed to be false merely because a witness now says that the same is not true.”

The Court found that Madelyn’s recantation was hesitant and vague, contrasting with her earlier candid and straightforward testimony. The trial court, having observed her demeanor firsthand, found her initial testimony more believable.

Furthermore, Madelyn’s original claim was corroborated by medical evidence. Dr. Joy Ann C. Jocson’s examination revealed healed hymenal lacerations, suggesting that Madelyn had experienced sexual intercourse or molestation. While Madelyn claimed the lacerations were due to her mother pinching her as a child, the Court deemed this explanation improbable, noting the location of the lacerations in her hymen. This medical evidence served as a crucial piece of corroborating evidence that supported the initial claim of rape, countering the impact of the recantation.

Additional supporting evidence came from SPO3 Ruben Dato-on, one of the arresting officers, who testified that Madelyn was shouting for help, claiming her father was going to rape her. This statement aligned with the initial accusations and suggested a pattern of abuse. The Court noted that Dato-on had no apparent motive to fabricate his testimony, further bolstering its credibility. The Court carefully weighed this piece of evidence, understanding that spontaneous utterances can often reflect the truth of a situation more accurately than later, potentially influenced, statements.

The Court also considered the circumstances surrounding Madelyn’s recantation. It was revealed that Retania Amban, Madelyn’s mother, had gained custody of Madelyn shortly before the recantation. This raised concerns about potential pressure or influence from the mother, who seemed intent on protecting her common-law husband. This concern about undue influence highlighted the precariousness of a witness’s recantation and the importance of examining it within the broader context of the family dynamics.

The Court highlighted that the crime was qualified due to the victim’s age and the offender’s parental relationship to her. Art. 335 of the Revised Penal Code, as amended by R.A. No. 7659, states that the death penalty shall be imposed if the crime of rape is committed with any of the following attendant circumstances:

“1. When the victim is under eighteen (18) years of age and the offender is a parent, ascendant, step-parent, guardian, relative by consanguinity or affinity within the third civil degree, or the common-law spouse of the parent of the victim.”

The concurrence of these factors justified the trial court’s decision to impose the death penalty. While some members of the Court expressed reservations regarding the constitutionality of the death penalty, they ultimately deferred to the majority’s ruling.

In assessing damages, the Court modified the trial court’s decision, which had denied damages based on the recantation. Citing People vs. Davatos, the Court affirmed the grant of indemnity to the victim, despite her retraction. As such, Loreto Amban was ordered to pay Madelyn P75,000.00 as indemnity for the rape, and P50,000.00 as moral damages. This award was intended to compensate for the suffering and trauma inflicted upon her. This underscored the judiciary’s resolve to ensure that victims receive appropriate redress for their injuries, even when circumstances surrounding the testimony are complex.

FAQs

What was the key issue in this case?	The central issue was whether the daughter’s recantation of her rape accusation against her father should lead to his acquittal, despite the initial credible testimony and corroborating evidence.
Why did the Supreme Court uphold the conviction despite the recantation?	The Court found the initial testimony more credible based on the trial court’s observations, medical evidence, and the circumstances surrounding the recantation, suggesting possible undue influence.
What was the significance of the medical evidence in this case?	The medical examination revealed healed hymenal lacerations, which supported the claim of sexual abuse and contradicted the daughter’s later explanation of the injuries.
What role did the daughter’s mother play in the case?	The mother gained custody of the daughter shortly before the recantation, raising concerns about potential pressure or influence to protect the accused, her common-law husband.
What is the legal basis for imposing the death penalty in this case?	Art. 335 of the Revised Penal Code, as amended by R.A. No. 7659, allows for the death penalty when the victim is under 18 and the offender is a parent or ascendant.
What damages were awarded to the victim in this case?	The Court ordered the accused to pay P75,000.00 as indemnity for the rape and P50,000.00 as moral damages to compensate for her suffering and trauma.
What did the Court cite for granting indemnity despite recantation?	The Court cited People vs. Davatos, in which the private complainant was granted indemnity despite her subsequent retraction of her testimony.
What is the legal principle regarding witness recantation?	The Court emphasized that a mere retraction does not automatically invalidate a witness’s original testimony; the circumstances and motives behind the change must be carefully scrutinized.

This case highlights the judiciary’s critical role in assessing witness credibility, especially in sensitive cases involving familial abuse. The Supreme Court’s decision underscores the importance of considering all available evidence and circumstances when evaluating a recantation, ensuring justice for vulnerable victims.

For inquiries regarding the application of this ruling to specific circumstances, please contact ASG Law through contact or via email at frontdesk@asglawpartners.com.

Disclaimer: This analysis is provided for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. For specific legal guidance tailored to your situation, please consult with a qualified attorney.
Source: People v. Amban, G.R. No. 134286, March 01, 2000