PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES vs.

GERRY BALLABARE and EDER BALLABARE

G.R. No. 108871
November 19, 1996
Second Division
Mendoza, J.:

FACTS: The two brothers, who are Juan and Leonardo Tacadao, were killed by Gerry Ballabare and Eder
Ballabare, who were also brothers. Gerry and Eder conspired and confederating together and mutually
helping one another, with evident premeditation and treachery, all armed with firearms and with intent to
kill, feloniously attack, assault and shoot with their firearms, hitting the Tacadao brothers in the vital
parts of their bodies and inflicting upon them the following injuries.

Tessita Asenita was the sole eyewitness for the prosecution, wherein, she claimed that she saw the
shooting because it took place at the a place within her view two arms-length away from the Tacadao
brothers.

The trial court found that the testimony of Asenita credible, thus, the Ballabare brothers are guilty of
illegal possession of firearm and two counts of murder. Thus, it prompted the Ballabare brothers to
appeal to the Supreme Court.

The Ballabare brothers contended that the trial court made a mistake in relying on the testimony of
Asenita because Asenita subsequently executed an Affidavit withdrawing her testimony to which was
attached an Affidavit of Desistance signed by the father of the Tacadao brothers, therefore, they should
be acquitted.

ISSUE: Whether or not the Ballabare brothers should be acquitted because of the Affidavit of
Desistance.

RULING: The Court held that NO, the contention of the Ballabare brothers has no merit.

To recant a prior statement is to renounce and withdraw it formally and publicly.

The Court held that the Affidavit executed by Asenita is not a recantation. Asenita did not really recant
what she had said during trial, she only said she wanted to withdraw her testimony because her father
Leonardo was no longer interested in prosecuting the case against the Ballabare brothers.

It would be absurd if the Court will disregard a testimony that has undergone trial and scrutiny by the
court and the parties simply because an affidavit withdrawing the testimony is subsequently presented by
the defense. Moreover, any recantation must be tested in a public trail with sufficient opportunity given
to the party adversely affected by it to cross-examine the recanting witness. In this case, Tessie Asenita
was not recalled to the witness stand to testify on her affidavit. Her affidavit is thus hearsay. It was her
husband, Roque Asenita, who was presented and the matters he testified to did not even bear on the
substance of Tessie's affidavit. He testified that accused-appellant was not involved in the perpetration of
the crime.

Even assuming that Tessie Asenita had made a retraction, this circumstance alone does not require the
court to disregard her original testimony. A retraction does not necessarily negate an earlier declaration.
For this reason, courts look with disfavor upon retractions because they can easily be obtained from
witnesses usually through intimidation or for monetary considerations. Hence, when confronted with a
situation where a witness recants his testimony, courts must not automatically exclude the original
testimony solely on the basis of the recantation. They should determine which testimony should be given
credence through a comparison of the original testimony and the new testimony, applying the general
rules of evidence.
Nor is the Affidavit of Desistance executed by Leonardo a basis for dismissing these cases. Like Tessie
Asenita, whose Affidavit withdrawing her pervious testimonies was presented, Leonardo Tacadao, Sr. was
not presented in court. His affidavit merely stated that in the interest of neighborliness and for lack of
interest, Leonardo Tacadao, Sr. was desisting from prosecuting the cases against accused-appellant.

The Court discuss the ruling in the case of Gomez vs. IAC
It is conceded that the State has the sovereign right to prosecute criminal offenses under the full control
of the fiscal and that the dismissal of criminal cases by the execution of an affidavit of desistance by the
complainant is not looked upon with favor. However, it is also true that an affidavit of desistance may
create serious doubts as to the liability of the accused. At the very least, it calls for second hard look at
the records of the case and the basis for the judgment of conviction. Jurisprudence on the effect of
desistance notwithstanding, the affidavit should not be peremptorily dismissed as a useless scrap of
paper.

Moreover, the Court also cited the case of People v. Lim, an affidavit of desistance is merely an additional
ground to buttress the accused's defenses, not the sole consideration that can result in acquittal. There
must be other circumstances which, when coupled with the retraction of desistance, create doubts as to
the truth of the testimony given by the witnesses at the trial and accepted by the judge.

In this case, there are no such circumstances. For as already noted, the affidavit of desistance of the
complainant, like the alleged affidavit of retraction by Tessie Asenita, is not a repudiation of the material
points alleged in the information and proven at the trial, but a mere expression of the lack of interest of
private complainant to pursue the case.

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES vs. LEO ECHEGARAY y PILO

G.R. No. 117472
February 07, 1997
En Banc
Per curiam

FACTS: Rodessa Echegaray is a 10 year old girl and a fifth-grader, and the eldest of five siblings.
Rodessa’s parents are Rosalie and Leo Echegaray. Rodessa claimed that she was raped by her own father
Leo Echegaray. The trial court found Leo guilty of the crime of rape.

In the decision of the Supreme Court, in 1996, the Court found Leo guilty of the crime of rape, thus,
subject to the punishment of death penalty. Therefore, Leo filed for a reconsideration of the case to the
Supreme Court, and argue that he should not have been prosecuted because of the affidavit of
desistance written by Rodessa which acted as a bar to the criminal prosecution for rape.

ISSUE: Whether or not Leo should be acquitted.

RULING: The Court held that NO, the Affidavit of desistance of Rodessa is just another ground to
support the defense but not a sole ground for acquittal.

The Court cited the case of People vs. Ballabare, that as pointed out in People v. Lim, an affidavit of
desistance is merely an additional ground to buttress the accused's defenses, not the sole consideration
that can result in acquittal. There must be other circumstances which, when coupled with the retraction
or desistance, create doubts as to the truth of the testimony given by the witnesses at the trial and
accepted by the judge.
It must be stressed that during the trial proceedings of the rape case against Leo, it appeared that
despite the admission made by Rodessa herself in open court that she had signed an Affidavit of
Desistance, she, nevertheless, "strongly pointed out that she is not withdrawing the charge against the
accused because the latter might do the same sexual assaults to other women."  Thus, this is one
occasion where an affidavit of desistance must be regarded with disfavor inasmuch as the victim, in her
tender age, manifested in court that she was pursuing the rape charges against Leo.

In the case at bar, all that Echegaray offered as defenses mainly consisted of denial and alibi which
cannot outweigh the positive identification and convincing testimonies given by the prosecution. Hence,
the affidavit of desistance, which the victim herself intended to disregard as earlier discussed, must have
no bearing on the criminal prosecution against Echegaray.

DOLORES MAGNO vs. PEOPLE

G.R. No. 133896
January 27, 2006
Second Division
Garcia, J.:

FACTS: Dolores Magno and Cerelito Alejandro are neighbors at Pucay Village. For quiet some time, the
Magnos had allowed the Alejandros to access their property so that the Alejandros could cross to the
highway. However, this was closed in 1991 by Dolores.

One day, when Cerelito was at the upper portion of his house, he saw Dolores write on the wall at the
back of her garage the following words: “Huwag Burahin Bawal Dumaan dito ang Maniac at Magnanakaw
ng Asto katulad ni Cere Lito O. Cedring.” Cerelito felt that he was the one referred by Dolores, thus, he
reported the matter to the local police and filed an affidavit-complaint with the Fiscal’s office.

Evidently appraised by the police of the complaint, Dolores repaired in the morning to the Baguio City
Police sub-station to deliver her 3-page letter-answer written in yellow pad and addressed to the station
sub-commander.

The first letter, unsigned and undated, and written on yellow pad, was addressed to Spouses Cerelito and
Fe Alejandro. The second letter is a photocopy of the first letter, but with the following addendum written
in ink at the back page. Lastly, the third letter, a photocopy of Dolores’ signed letter to the Sub-Station
Commander of BCP, a reply to the statement given by Fe to the police station.

However, Dolores was convicted by the Regional Trial Court and Court of Appeals of the crime of libel.

Dolores argue that the Prosecution failed to established the presence of elements of publication.

ISSUE: Whether or not the element of publication was absent in the case at bar.

RULING: The Court held that NO, the element of publication was not absent in the case at bar.

The Court cited Article 353 of the Revised Penal Code which provides that, the following elements must
be shown to exist:
a) The allegation of a discreditable act or condition concerning another;
b) Publication of the charge;
c) Identity of the person defamed; and
d) Existence of malice
Further the Court also provides for the definition of publication, in the law of libel, wherein it means that
the making of the defamatory matter, after it has been written, known to someone other than the person
to whom it has been written. Thus, if the statement is sent straight to a person for whom it is written
there is no publication of it.

In this case, there is no dispute that the unsealed envelope containing the libelous letter was handed by
Dolores to Evelyn Arcartado. However, Evelyn categorically admitted not reading the letter at the first
instance, reading it only after securing Cerelito’s permission. But, writing to a person other than the
person defamed is sufficient to constitute publication, for the person to whom the letter is addressed is a
third person in relation to its writer and the person defamed therein. Fe, the wife of Cerelito, is, in
context, a third person to whom the publication was made.

Thus, the Court finds that all the elements of libel to have been sufficiently established.

RODOLFO R. VASQUEZ vs. COURT OF APPEALS, REGIONAL TRIAL COURT OF MANILA,

BRANCH 40, and the PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES
G.R. No. 118971
September 15, 1999
En Banc
Mendoza, J.:

FACTS: Rodolfo R. Vasquez is a resident of the Tondo Foreshore Area. In 1986, Vasquez and some 37
families from the area went to see then National House Authority General Manager Lito Atienza regarding
their complaint against their Barangay Chairman, Jaime Olmedo. After their meeting, Vasquez and his
companions were met and interviewed by newspaper reporters concerning their complaint. The next day,
a news article appeared in the newspaper Ang Tinig ng Masa.

Because of the article in the newspaper, Olmedo filed a complaint for libel against Vasquez, alleging that
Vasquez’ statements cast aspersions on him and damaged his reputation.

ISSUE: Whether or not Vasquez is guilty of libel.

RULING: The Court held that NO, Vasquez is not guilty of libel.

The Court cited Article 353 of the Revised Penal Code which provides that the following elements must be
proved:
a) The allegation of a discreditable act or condition concerning another;
b) Publication of the charge;
c) Identity of the person defamed; and
d) Existence of malice

An allegation is considered defamatory if it is ascribes to a person the commission of a crime, the

possession of a vice or defect, real or imaginary, or any act, omission, condition, status or circumstance
which tends to dishonor or discredit or put him in contempt, or which tends to blacken the memory of
one who is dead.

There is publication if the material is communicated to a third person. It is not necessary that the person
defamed has read or heard about the libelous remark. What is material is that a third person has read or
heard the libelous statement, for a man’s reputation is the estimate in which others hold him, not the
good opinion which he has of himself.”
To satisfy the element of identifiability must be shown that at least a third person or a stranger was able
to identify him as the object of the defamatory statement.

Malice or ill will must be present, thus, as provided under Article 354 of the Revised Penal Code, every
defamatory imputation is presumed to be malicious, even if it be true, if no good intention and justifiable
motive for making it is shown.

In this case, there is no doubt that the first three elements are present. The statements that Olmedo,
through connivance with NHA officials, was able to obtain title to several lots in the area and that he was
involved in a number of illegal activities were clearly defamatory. Moreover, there is no doubt that the
defamatory remarks referred to Olmedo and were published. Vasquez caused the publication of the
defamatory remarks when he made the statements to the reporters who interviewed him.

However, with regard to malice, since malice can be presumed, it was incumbent upon Vasquez to
overcome the presumption. Article 361 of the Revised Penal Code provides that if the defamatory
statement is made against a public official with respect to the discharge of his official duties and functions
and the truth of the allegation is shown, the accused will be entitled to an acquittal even though he does
not prove that the imputation was published with good motives and for justifiable ends. In this case,
Vasquez was able to prove the truth of his charges against Olmedo. His allegation that, through
connivance with NHA officials, Olmedo was able to obtain title to several lots at the Tondo Foreshore
Area was based on the letter of NHA Inspector General Hermogenes Fernandez to Vasquez' counsel.
Vasquez and the other residents of the Tondo Foreshore Area were not only acting in their self-interest
but engaging in the performance of a civic duty to see to it that public duty is discharged faithfully and
well by those on whom such duty is incumbent. The recognition of this right and duty of every citizen in a
democracy is inconsistent with any requirement placing on him the burden of proving that he acted with
good motives and for justifiable ends. Thus, even if the defamatory statement is false, no liability can
attach if it relates to official conduct, unless the public official concerned proves that the statements was
made with actual malice.