The Supreme Court (SC) has ruled that human trafficking cases cannot be dismissed solely based on an affidavit of desistance executed by a victim, parent, or legal guardian, emphasizing that such documents are often unreliable because monetary settlements may influence them.
In a 16-page decision written by Associate Justice Samuel Gaerlan, the SC’s Third Division affirmed the conviction of Mary Joy dela Torre for qualified trafficking in persons under Republic Act 9208, or the Anti-Trafficking in Persons Act.
The Court sentenced Dela Torre to life imprisonment and imposed a fine of P2 million.
The case stemmed from an incident on 20 August 2016, when Dela Torre allegedly recruited a 13-year-old neighbor and persuaded her to meet a 60-year-old man in a hotel for sex in exchange for P15,000.
According to court records, Dela Torre arranged the minor’s transportation, provided a blood-soaked cotton ball to make it appear she was a virgin, collected the payment after the sexual act, purchased a cellphone for the victim, and gave her only a portion of the money.
P30K for retraction
Criminal charges were filed after the victim’s mother learned of the incident. During the trial, however, the victim and her mother executed an affidavit of desistance after receiving P30,000 from the defense.
Despite the retraction, the victim later reaffirmed in court her original testimony detailing the sexual exploitation she suffered.
The Regional Trial Court convicted Dela Torre, a ruling that the Court of Appeals subsequently upheld.
In elevating the case to the Supreme Court, the accused argued that the affidavit of desistance should have led to the dismissal of the charges.
The high court rejected the argument, citing Section 8(c) of Republic Act 9208, which expressly provides that trafficking cases cannot be dismissed solely on the basis of an affidavit of desistance executed by the victim or the victim’s family.
The SC stressed that trafficking victims are particularly vulnerable to pressure and inducements, making such affidavits inherently suspect.
“Sworn testimony given in open court and subjected to cross-examination cannot be readily overturned by a subsequent retraction, especially when a monetary settlement prompted the recantation,” the Court added.
The justices also underscored that criminal actions are prosecuted in the name of the State, which remains the party principally affected by the commission of the crime.
“It is the State, not the private complainant, that determines whether a criminal case should proceed,” the Court said.
The decision noted that the child victim admitted during cross-examination that she agreed to sign the affidavit of desistance after accepting P30,000 offered by Dela Torre in exchange for dropping the charges.
