People of The Philippines V Dela Cerna

People of the Philippines v.
Ernesto Dela Cerna

G.R. Nos. 136899904
October 9, 2002
Facts:
Six separate complaints for rape were filed against accused- appellant. Irene, the
offended party, is the daughter of accused-appellant. She was seven years old when
she was first raped by her own father.
The dates of the commission of rape are as follows:
1.) January 15, 1989: Appellant called Irene from inside the room. Once Irene
was inside the room, appellant undressed her and made her lie down.
Appellant played with her vagina for about ten (10) minutes and "pushed" his
penis into the lips of her vagina.
2.) December 26, 1993: Irenes mother was out taking up dress-making,
appellant forced Irene to enter the room. Appellant stripped her naked, forced
his penis into her vagina and performed the push and pull movement for
about ten (10) minutes. Irene did not shout for help because of fear.
3.) March 3, 1996: Appellant called Irene in the room and stripped her naked.
Appellant ordered Irene to lie down and mounted on top of her. Appellant
inserted his penis into her vagina and performed the push and pull
movement. Irene tried to shake appellant off but he was too heavy for her.
Irene did not shout for help because of fear that appellant might harm her
and her siblings.
4.) August 25, 1996: Irene was already fourteen (14) years old at this time.
Appellant called her from the room. Irene was already reluctant to go alone
near appellant as she knew what appellant would do to her. Irene was
constrained to go to appellant when her other sister told her to go to him as
beckoned. Inside the room, appellant undressed her. Irene did not utter a
word while she was being undressed because she was afraid that appellant
might get angry and she and her siblings will again be subjected to physical
abuse.
5.) February 10, 1997: While her mother was out, appellant dragged Irene up the
stairs of their new house towards the room. Appellant pushed her on the bed,
inserted his penis into her vagina and performed the push and pull
movement.
6.) March 5, 1997: Appellant forced Irene inside the room and stripped her
naked. Appellant made her lie down on the bed, inserted his penis into her
vagina and performed the push and pull movement for about ten (10)
minutes. Irene initially resisted appellant but she was no match for him.
The trial court rendered judgment finding accused-appellant guilty of six counts of
rape.
Issue:
Whether or not the trial court erred in convicting the accused-appellant despite of
the Affidavit of Desistance presented by the offended party
Ruling:
No. An affidavit of desistance is a sworn statement, executed by a complainant in a
criminal or administrative case that he or she is discontinuing or disavowing the
action filed upon his or her complaint for whatever reason he or she may cite.
Jurisprudential accounts reveal that no persuasive value to a desistance is attached
especially when executed as an afterthought.
In this case, the affidavit of desistance of the private complainant revealed that she
never retracted her allegation that she was raped by her father. A comparison of
Irene's previous and subsequent testimonies leads to the inference that the affidavit
of desistance was executed merely as an afterthought. As such, it has no persuasive
effect.
Moreover, the rape incidents in this case occurred prior to the effectivity of RA 8353,
"The Anti-Rape Law of 1997" which took effect on October 22, 1997 and classified
the crime of rape as a crime against persons. Such being the case, the court applied
the old law and treat the acts of rape herein committed as private crimes.
In seduction, abduction, rape and acts of lasciviousness, two modes are recognized
for extinguishing criminal liability pardon and marriage. In all cases, however, the
pardon must come prior to the institution of the criminal action. After the case has
been filed in court, any pardon made by the private complainant, whether by sworn
statement or on the witness stand, cannot extinguish criminal liability.
In this case, the private complainant filed her complaint on May 16, 1997 and even
testified against accused-appellant on March 25, 1998. On the other hand, she
executed her affidavit of desistance only on July 3, 1998. Clearly, the pardon
extended by the victim to her father was made after the institution of the criminal
action. Consequently, it cannot be a ground to dismiss the action in these cases.

People of The Philippines V Dela Cerna

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

People of The Philippines V Dela Cerna

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

People of The Philippines V Dela Cerna

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

People of the Philippines v.

Ernesto Dela Cerna

You might also like