People vs.

Dalabajan
G.R. No. 105668
October 16,1997

HERMOSISIMA, JR., J.:

Facts:

In the Province of Palawan, one Amado Zabalo, Jr., was killed through attack,
assault and stab with a bladed weapon, strike with a banca paddle and piece of wood.
Such attack hit various parts of his body and led to his instantaneous death. The trial on
the case was conducted. During the trial, the testimony of an eye witness, Dela Cruz was
presented by the prosecution. However, before the trial court rendered its decision on
the case, an affidavit of desistance was filed by the father of Zabalo, Jr. and the eye
witness executed an affidavit recanting the statement he previously made in the open
court during trial. But the trial court still convicted the accused for the crime charged.

Hence, this appeal filed by the accused arguing that the testimony of the witness
be disregard for being manifestly fabricated, supported by the affidavit of decantation.

Issue:

Whether or not an affidavit of recantation executed by the witness constitutes a

newly discovered evidence that would cause the remanding of the case to the trial court
for new trial.

Court’s Ruling:

The court ruled in the negative.

The court reiterated the previous ruling that mere retraction by a prosecution
witness does not necessarily vitiate the original testimony if credible. The court disfavors
retraction of previously given testimonies for such can easily be secured from witnesses,
usually through intimidation or for a monetary consideration.
 In addition, it is not among the grounds for new trial set forth in Section 2 of Rule
121 of the Rules of Court, to wit:

(a) That errors of law or irregularities have been committed during the trial
prejudicial to the substantial rights of the accused;

(b) That new and material evidence has been discovered which the accused
could not with reasonable diligence have discovered and produced at the trial, and
which if introduced and admitted, would probably change the judgment.

Moreover, the lapse of almost four (4) years from the date of the witness’s last
testimony when the affidavit of desistance and long after the trial has concluded casted
serious doubt upon the said statement. In the case of U .S. v. Dacir, the court
emphasized, to wit:

"In general, motions for new trial based on affidavits of this kind are entitled
to but scant consideration. The mere fact that after a solemn trial in a court of
justice has been terminated, one of the witnesses, in conversation with friends or
under pressure from interested parties, may tell a different story as to the incidents
testified to by him, does not necessarily destroy the probative testimony when on
the witness stand. If new trials were granted in every instance where the interested
party or parties succeed in inducing some of the witnesses to vary or modify their
testimony outside of court and after the trial, there would never be an end of
criminal litigation. . . .

Neither the affidavit of desistance of the father’s victim, nor the affidavit of
recantation by the witness cannot be a valid ground for new trial. Therefore, the trial
court’s decision was reaffirmed by the court.