Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

PEOPLE v. FLORENTINO O. RAMIREZ

This case has been cited 6 times or more.

	GR No. 181900 2010-10-20	PEOPLE v. DEMETRIO SALAZAR VELASCO JR., J.
In People v. Ramirez, Jr.,[26] the Court was even more circumspect: As a rule, a recantation or an affidavit of desistance is viewed with suspicion and reservation. Jurisprudence has invariably regarded such affidavit as exceedingly unreliable, because it can easily be secured from a poor and ignorant witness, usually through intimidation or for monetary consideration. Moreover, there is always the probability that it would later on be repudiated, and criminal prosecution would thus be interminable.
	GR Nos. 147578-85 2008-01-28	ROLANDO L. BALDERAMA v. PEOPLE and JUAN S. ARMAMENTO SANDOVAL-GUTIERREZ, J.
A recantation or an affidavit of desistance is viewed with suspicion and reservation. [8] The Court looks with disfavor upon retractions of testimonies previously given in court. It is settled that an affidavit of desistance made by a witness after conviction of the accused is not reliable, and deserves only scant attention.[9] The rationale for the rule is obvious: affidavits of retraction can easily be secured from witnesses, usually through intimidation or for a monetary consideration. Recanted testimony is exceedingly unreliable. There is always the probability that it will later be repudiated.[10] Only when there exist special circumstances in the case which when coupled with the retraction raise doubts as to the truth of the testimony or statement given, can retractions be considered and upheld.[11] As found by the Sandiganbayan, "(t)here is indubitably nothing in the affidavit which creates doubts on the guilt of accused Balderama and Nagal."
	AM No. MTJ-05-1616 2007-10-17	MARY JANE VALLENTOS JAMIN v. JUDGE MANUEL A. DE CASTRO PER CURIAM
Respondent judge has made much of the affidavit of retraction and withdrawal[20] of complainant upon which the Prosecutor's Office of Bohol predicated its dismissal of the underlying complaint for rape. It should be stressed, however, that recantation is viewed with suspicion. For a recantation is exceedingly unreliable inasmuch as it is easily secured from a poor and ignorant witness, usually through intimidation or for monetary consideration.[21] And going by the social standing and economic status of the complainant, and as the records tend to indicate, the mix of both factors seem to explain why complainant affixed her signature to the recanting affidavit.
	AM NO. RTJ-02-1735 2007-04-27	SPS. RODOLFO AND SYLVIA CABICO v. JUDGE EVELYN L. DIMACULANGAN- QUERIJERO CARPIO, J.
Even if we consider the victim's affidavit of desistance, still it would not justify the dismissal. By itself, an affidavit of desistance or pardon is not a ground for the dismissal of an action, once the action has been instituted in court.[16] Here, the victim made the so-called pardon of the accused after the institution of the action.[17] Hence, the victim had already lost the right or absolute privilege to decide whether the rape charge should proceed because the case had already reached and must therefore continue to be heard by the trial court.[18]
	GR NOS. 171322-24 2006-11-30	MARIANITO S. VICTORIANO v. PEOPLE YNARES-SANTIAGO, J.
As a rule, a recantation or an affidavit of desistance is viewed with suspicion and reservation. Jurisprudence has invariably regarded such affidavit as exceedingly unreliable, because it can easily be secured from a poor and ignorant witness, usually through intimidation or for monetary consideration. Moreover, there is always the probability that it would later on be repudiated, and criminal prosecution would thus be interminable.[17] By itself, an affidavit of desistance or pardon is not a ground for the dismissal of an action, once it has been instituted in court.[18] Vicente Esteves, Jr. executed an affidavit of desistance on October 8, 1996, long after the case has been submitted for decision on November 29, 1994. Thus, petitioner's claim that the Sandiganbayan erred in denying his motion for new trial on the basis of said affidavit of desistance must likewise fail.
	GR NO. 168168 2005-09-14	PEOPLE v. EDGARDO DIMAANO PER CURIAM
Moreover, a criminal offense is an outrage to the sovereign State and to the State belongs the power to prosecute and punish crimes.[30] By itself, an affidavit of desistance is not a ground for the dismissal of an action, once it has been instituted in court. A private complainant loses the right or absolute privilege to decide whether the rape charge should proceed, because the case was already filed and must therefore continue to be heard by the trial court.[31]