Elvie was the 15-year-old daughter of Julie, a single mother who was co-habiting with Tino, her common-law husband since 1991. The relationship between Elvie and her stepfather Tino was far from ideal. In fact, Tino repeatedly maltreated the girl and on two previous occasions, he even sexually abused Elvie who did not report about it out of fear. But on April 22, 1996 when Tino once more sexually assaulted her while already asleep, Elvie already asked the help of her uncle who thereupon accompanied her to the police station.
After medical examination where it was confirmed that Elvie had "healed lacerations which could have been caused by sexual intercourse, medical instrumentation, passage of clotted blood through menstruation or severe physical exertion", Elvie filed a complaint for rape against Tino assisted by her mother Julie.
During the hearing, Elvie testified in a straightforward, spontaneous and frank manner and remained consistent in her story. She was subjected to a rigid cross examination and had emotional breakdowns now and then. But she stuck to her story of how Tino sexually abused her by lifting her skirt, removing her panty and trying to satisfy his lust which she initially repelled as she made some movements until finally, Tino succeeded in penetrating her albeit incompletely.
Based on her testimony, and that of her mother as well as the medical report, Tino was convicted of the crime of rape and sentenced to death by the lower court despite his denial and his version that he only mauled her that night.
After the case was elevated to the Supreme Court (SC) for automatic review, or on September 27, 2001, Elvie filed an affidavit of desistance, upon consulting her mother. Should the case against Tino be dismissed based on Elvie’s retraction in her affidavit of desistance?
No. An affidavit of desistance is not looked upon with favor on appeal following a conviction, let alone as being the sole consideration for the reversal of that conviction. There must be other circumstances which, when coupled with the retraction or desistance, create doubts on the veracity of the testimony given by the witnesses during the trial. There are no such doubts created in this case. A rape victim who testifies in a categorical, straightforward, spontaneous and frank manner, and remains consistent, is a credible witness. The victim in this case has remained steadfast in her testimony despite a rigid cross examination by the defense. The spontaneous emotional breakdowns suffered by the victim occasioned by the forced recollection of the sexual violation she has experienced from the hands of Tino somehow would add to her credibility. So Tino’s conviction should be affirmed but his sentence should only be reclusion perpetua instead of death because the true age and the relationship of the victim to the offender have not been sufficiently proven (People vs. Lou, G.R.146803, January 14, 2004. 419 SCRA, 345).