Affidavit of desistance cannot be used as basis to dismiss trafficking case — SC

The Supreme Court (SC) has said that an affidavit of desistance, or a sworn statement withdrawing a complaint, from a victim is “highly suspect” and cannot be used as a basis to dismiss a trafficking case.

SC Third Division, in a 16-page decision, affirmed the conviction of a woman for trafficking a minor.

The SC cited Section 8 of the Anti-Trafficking in Persons Act of 2003, which states that cases involving trafficking should not be dismissed based on the affidavit of desistance executed by the victims, their parents, or legal guardians.

“We take this opportunity to emphasize that affidavits of desistance are highly suspect when the person executing the same is a victim of exploitation,” it said.

“This is especially true when the victim is a child or a person who cannot be expected to know the full consequences of the retraction of a testimony,” it added.

According to the court, it cannot disregard the possibility that the decision was a result of coercion, influence, or other forces that may make the retraction involuntary or untrue.

The SC said the woman recruited the minor to provide sexual services to a man in exchange for money.

It said the minor received P15,000 from the man, but the woman later took the money. The woman bought her a cellphone and gave her P3,000.

Following this, the child’s mother discovered the incident and filed a complaint.

According to the SC, the victim later revealed that she signed the affidavit of desistance in exchange for P30,000 from the woman’s counsel.

Meanwhile, the High Court reiterated that the State is the party affected by the dismissal of the criminal action and not the private complainant.

Due to this, the court said it is up to the State to determine if the case should proceed while the complainant’s role is limited to that of a witness.

“Furthermore, by itself, an affidavit of desistance or pardon is not a ground for the dismissal of an action once the case has been instituted in court,” it said.

“This springs from the rule that in a criminal action already filed in court, the private complainant loses the right or absolute privilege to decide whether the charge should proceed,” it added.

Aside from this, the SC said that all elements of qualified trafficking in persons are present. The court declared the woman guilty and sentenced her to suffer the penalty of life imprisonment.

The decision, penned by Associate Justice Samuel Gaerlan, was promulgated in February and made public in September. — BAP, GMA News