Signing an Affidavit of Desistance Does Not End a Trafficking Case

Once a criminal case is filed, the complainant no longer owns it. The State does.

Last reviewed: September 13, 2026General legal information, not legal advice
News hook: On September 1, 2026 the Supreme Court's Third Division, in a decision written by Associate Justice Samuel H. Gaerlan, affirmed a conviction for qualified trafficking in persons involving a minor — even though the victim had signed an affidavit of desistance withdrawing the charges. On cross-examination the minor admitted she had accepted ₱30,000 to sign the affidavit, which had been prepared by the accused's own counsel. Questioned further by the trial court, she maintained that her earlier testimony was true. The Court held that a desistance by a victim of exploitation is highly suspect and cannot be the basis for dismissing a trafficking case.

Legal question

If the victim in a criminal case signs a sworn statement withdrawing the complaint, does the case get dismissed — and is trafficking treated differently?

Applicable laws and rules

Why this matters

The affidavit of desistance is the single most effective tool used to defeat prosecutions in the Philippines, and it works precisely because it exploits the vulnerability that made the crime possible. A victim who can be trafficked can usually be bought, pressured, or frightened into signing.

Public understanding of it is also wrong in a way that causes real harm. Complainants are routinely told — sometimes by the accused, sometimes by intermediaries — that signing will "make the case go away," and many sign believing they are exercising a right they possess. In most criminal cases they are not.

Trafficking has an express statutory answer, which few people know exists. Section 8 of RA 9208 says in terms that these cases shall not be dismissed on the strength of a desistance, and this ruling applies it to facts that could hardly be more stark.

What happened

The accused was the minor's neighbor. She recruited the minor to provide sexual services to a man in exchange for money, brought her to a hotel, and introduced them. She coached the minor on how to make it appear she was still a virgin. She took money from the man before leaving the room. After the act the minor received ₱15,000 from the man, which the accused later took from her; the accused also bought the minor a cellphone and gave her ₱3,000.

The minor's mother discovered the incident and filed the complaint. The minor testified in court, and then later signed an affidavit of desistance. Under cross-examination she admitted she had been paid ₱30,000 to sign it and that the document had been drafted by the accused's counsel. When the Regional Trial Court questioned her directly, she maintained that her earlier testimony was true.

The RTC convicted her of qualified trafficking under RA 9208 as amended by RA 10364. The Court of Appeals affirmed, giving the affidavit little weight because the minor had confirmed the truth of her earlier testimony. The Supreme Court sustained the conviction.

The statutory rule: Section 8 of RA 9208

The Court's first ground is textual and decisive. Section 8 of RA 9208, as amended, provides that trafficking cases shall not be dismissed on the basis of affidavits of desistance executed by the victims or by their parents or legal guardians.

That is a deliberate legislative response to a known pattern. Congress wrote the rule because trafficking victims are, by definition, people whose circumstances make them susceptible to inducement and pressure — and because their families are frequently susceptible too, which is why the provision extends to parents and legal guardians. A settlement reached with the victim's mother would be no more effective than one reached with the victim.

Why desistance by an exploited victim is treated as suspect

Beyond the statute, the Court explained the evidentiary logic. Affidavits of desistance by victims of exploitation should be treated with caution, because they may have been made under coercion, pressure, or undue influence. That is especially true where the victims are children, who may not fully understand the consequences of withdrawing their testimony.

The facts here supply the illustration: the money came from the other side, and the document was drafted by the accused's lawyer. An instrument produced and paid for by the party it benefits is not independent evidence of anything.

It is worth being precise about the distinction the courts draw. An affidavit of desistance says the complainant no longer wishes to pursue the case; it is not, by itself, a statement that the original accusation was false. A recantation says the earlier testimony was untrue. Courts view both unfavorably, but a recantation at least engages the truth of the testimony. Here the minor did neither in substance — she confirmed on the record that her earlier testimony was true.

The bigger principle: the case belongs to the State

The Court's broadest statement reaches well past trafficking: once a criminal case has been filed in court, the complainant can no longer decide whether the case should proceed. The State has an interest in prosecuting the crime and is the party affected by a dismissal of the criminal action.

This is the general rule in Philippine criminal procedure, and it surprises people constantly. Under Rule 110, Section 5 of the Rules of Court, all criminal actions are prosecuted under the direction and control of the public prosecutor. The caption is People of the Philippines v. the accused — the private complainant is a witness with an interest in the civil aspect, not the owner of the prosecution.

Two qualifications keep this accurate. First, before an information is filed, at the preliminary investigation stage, a desistance carries considerably more practical weight, because the prosecutor may find no probable cause without a willing complainant. Second, a small class of private crimes under Article 344 of the Revised Penal Code — concubinage, adultery, and, in the specific manner the Code provides, certain offenses against chastity — genuinely do depend on a complaint by the offended party. Trafficking is not among them; it is a public crime.

What desistance actually affects

It is not that the affidavit is meaningless. Its real effects are narrower than advertised:

What it does not do is deprive the court of jurisdiction or oblige a dismissal.

Paying for a desistance carries its own exposure

The conduct described in this case is not merely ineffective; it is dangerous for the person doing it. Paying a witness to withdraw or change testimony can constitute obstruction of justice under PD 1829, which penalizes obstructing the apprehension and prosecution of criminal offenders. Depending on the facts it may also amount to subornation in relation to perjury, and — where the case involves a child — to further offenses under RA 7610 and the anti-trafficking laws themselves, which penalize interfering with the prosecution of trafficking cases.

Counsel who prepares such an instrument is separately exposed under the Code of Professional Responsibility and Accountability. That the affidavit here was drafted by the accused's own lawyer is a detail the Court recorded rather than passed over.

What individuals should know

If you are a victim or a complainant being asked to sign an affidavit of desistance: you are not obliged to sign anything, the case will not necessarily be dismissed if you do, and money accepted in exchange will not be protected — it will surface in cross-examination exactly as it did here. If you are being pressured, report it to the prosecutor handling the case, and note that trafficking victims are entitled to protective measures and assistance through the Inter-Agency Council Against Trafficking, the DSWD, and the Witness Protection Program under RA 6981.

If you are a parent or guardian, your signature does not settle a trafficking case either. Section 8 covers desistance executed by parents and legal guardians precisely because that route was being used.

And if you are an accused or acting for one: a purchased desistance does not end a public criminal case, it hands the prosecution a vivid piece of consciousness-of-guilt evidence, and it can generate fresh criminal exposure for obstruction. The lawful route to compromise a case is limited to the civil liability, and in trafficking even that leaves the criminal prosecution standing.

Ask PHLaw.AI

Try: "The accused's family is offering my daughter money to sign an affidavit of desistance in a trafficking case. If she signs, will the case be dismissed, and can they be charged for offering?"

Ask about this topic

Sources