By Benjamin Cuaresma
MANILA, Philippines — Victims of human trafficking cannot simply withdraw their complaints to make criminal cases disappear, the Supreme Court has ruled, declaring affidavits of desistance by exploited victims “highly suspect” and insufficient to justify the dismissal of a trafficking case.
In a Decision written by Associate Justice Samuel H. Gaerlan, the Supreme Court’s Third Division upheld the conviction of a woman for qualified trafficking in persons involving a minor, despite the victim’s subsequent execution of an affidavit seeking to withdraw the charges.
The case involved a woman who was a neighbor of the minor and recruited the girl to provide sexual services to a man in exchange for money.
The woman brought the minor to a hotel where the girl met the man. She also instructed the minor 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.
Afterward, the minor received ₱15,000 from the man, but the woman later took the money. She also bought the girl a cellphone and gave her ₱3,000.
The incident was eventually discovered by the minor’s mother, who filed a complaint against the woman.
The minor testified in court and recounted what happened. She later executed an affidavit of desistance withdrawing the charges.
But during cross-examination, the minor admitted that she had received ₱30,000 in exchange for signing the affidavit, which had been prepared by the accused’s counsel.
When the Regional Trial Court questioned her further, the minor stood by her original testimony and maintained that it was true.
The RTC convicted the woman of qualified trafficking in persons under Republic Act No. 9208, or the Anti-Trafficking in Persons Act of 2003, as amended by RA 10364, the Expanded Anti-Trafficking in Persons Act of 2012.
The Court of Appeals affirmed the conviction, giving little weight to the affidavit after the minor reaffirmed the truth of her testimony.
The Supreme Court likewise sustained the conviction.
The Court cited Section 8 of RA 9208, as amended, which provides that trafficking cases should not be dismissed based on affidavits of desistance executed by victims or their parents or legal guardians.
The Supreme Court said affidavits of desistance involving victims of exploitation must be viewed with caution because they may be executed under coercion, pressure or undue influence.
The concern is even greater when the victim is a child, the Court said, because children may not fully understand the consequences of withdrawing their testimony.
The Court further made clear that once a criminal case has been brought before the courts, the complainant no longer controls whether the prosecution will continue.
The State has an interest in prosecuting criminal offenses, and it is the State that is affected by the dismissal of a criminal action.
Thus, an affidavit of desistance executed during the trial does not, by itself, provide sufficient basis to dismiss a criminal case.
In this case, the minor’s admission that she received ₱30,000 for signing the affidavit, coupled with her reaffirmation of her original testimony, supported the lower courts’ decision to give the withdrawal statement little weight.
The accused was ultimately sentenced to life imprisonment, fined ₱2 million, and ordered to pay the minor ₱600,000 in damages.
ia/xf
