THE Supreme Court has ruled that an affidavit of desistance cannot be used to dismiss a human trafficking case, warning that such withdrawals are “highly suspect” when made by victims of exploitation, particularly children.
In a decision penned by Associate Justice Samuel Gaerlan, the court's Third Division upheld the conviction of a woman for qualified trafficking in persons involving a minor, stressing that trafficking cases cannot simply be abandoned because a victim withdraws her complaint.
The case involved a woman who recruited her minor neighbor to provide sexual services to a man for money.
She brought the girl to a hotel, where she met the man, and even instructed her on how to make it appear that she was still a virgin after the sexual act.
The woman received money from the man before leaving the hotel room.
The minor was later given P15,000, but the woman took the money. She also bought the girl a cellphone and gave her P3,000.
The girl’s mother discovered what happened and filed a complaint against the woman.
Although the minor testified in court, she later executed an affidavit of desistance seeking to withdraw the charges.
During cross-examination, however, she admitted receiving P30,000 to sign the affidavit prepared by the counsel of the accused.
Pressed further by the Regional Trial Court (RTC), the minor stood by her original testimony and maintained that it was true.
The RTC convicted the woman under Republic Act 9208, or the Anti-Trafficking in Persons Act of 2003, as amended by RA 10364, or the Expanded Anti-Trafficking in Persons Act of 2012.
The Court of Appeals affirmed the ruling, giving little weight to the affidavit of desistance.
The high court sustained the conviction.
Citing Section 8 of RA 9208, as amended, the Supreme Court said trafficking cases should not be dismissed based on affidavits of desistance executed by victims, their parents, or legal guardians.
The Court warned that such affidavits must be treated with caution because victims of exploitation may withdraw their complaints due to coercion, pressure, or undue influence.
The danger is even greater when the victim is a child who may not fully understand the consequences of abandoning a criminal case.
The Supreme Court also emphasized that once a criminal case has been filed in court, the complainant no longer has the power to decide whether the prosecution should continue.
According to the Court, the State has a direct interest in prosecuting crimes, making it the party ultimately affected by any dismissal. Thus, an affidavit of desistance — especially one executed while a trial is ongoing — does not by itself justify dropping the case.
The accused was sentenced to life imprisonment, fined P2 million, and ordered to pay the victim P600,000 in damages.
