G.R. No. 134286 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, VS. LORETO AMBAN Y TROBILLAS, ACCUSED-.D E C I S I O N - Supreme Court E-Library

Ruling

Accordingly, the Court makes no pronouncement with respect to the civil liability of the accused." Hence, this appeal. Accused-appellant raises the following issue [19] - "WHETHER OR NOT, THE RECANTATION TESTIMONY OF THE PRIVATE COMPLAINANT WHEN PRESENTED IN COURT AS A WITNESS FOR THE DEFENSE SHOULD BE TAKEN INTO CONSIDERATION CLAIMING THAT SHE WAS NOT RAPED, HOWEVER, THE CASE WAS FILED DUE TO HER RESENTMENT AGAINST HER FATHER FOR INFLICTING PHYSICAL HARM ON HER, SO THAT ACCUSED, HAS NOT COMMITTED THE CRIME OF RAPE." He contends that on the basis of Madelyn's recantation, he is entitled to an acquittal. The contention is without merit. Mere retraction by a prosecution witness does not necessarily vitiate his original testimony. As this Court held in People vs. Ubina: [20] " x x x Merely because a witness says that what he had declared is false and that what he now says is true, is not sufficient ground for concluding that the previous testimony is false. No such reasoning has ever crystallized into a rule of credibility. 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 jurisprudence of this Court has always been otherwise, i.e., that contradictory testimony given subsequently does not necessarily discredit the previous testimony if the contradictions are satisfactorily explained. (U.S. vs. Magtibay, 17 Phil. 417; U.S. vs. Briones, 28 Phil. 362; U.S. vs. Dasiip, 26 Phil. 503; U.S. vs. Lazaro, 34 Phil. 871). We have also held that if a previous confession of an accused were to be rejected simply because the latter subsequently makes another confession, all that an accused would do to acquit himself would be to make another confession out of harmony with the previous one (U.S. vs. Acasio, 37 Phil. 70). Similarly, it would be a dangerous rule for courts to reject testimonies solemnly taken before courts of justice simply because the witnesses who had given them later on change their mind [s] for one reason or another, for such rule would make solemn trials a mockery and place the investigation of truth at the mercy of unscrupulous, witnesses. x x x The rule should be that a testimony solemnly given in court should not be lightly set aside and that before this can be done, both the previous testimony and the subsequent one be carefully compared, the circumstances under which each given carefully scrutinized, the reasons or motives for the change carefully scrutinized-in other words, all the expedients devised by man to determine the credibility of witnesses should be utilized to determine which of the contradictory testimonies represents the truth." In this case, the trial court, in giving credence to Madelyn's testimony for the prosecution rather than to her testimony for the defense, noted: [21] "Madelyn was full of hesitation when she testified as a recanting witness. In