The Supreme Court (SC) has ruled that an affidavit of desistance — a sworn statement withdrawing a complaint — is “highly suspect” when executed by a victim of exploitation and cannot by itself justify the dismissal of a human trafficking case.

In a decision written by Associate Justice Samuel H. Gaerlan, the SC Third Division affirmed the conviction of a woman for qualified trafficking in persons involving a minor.

The accused, who was the minor’s neighbor, recruited her to provide sexual services to a man for money. She brought the minor to a hotel, where they met the man, and instructed her 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 room. The minor was given P15,000, which the woman later took. She bought the minor a cellphone and gave her P3,000.

The minor’s mother discovered what happened and filed a complaint.

The minor testified in court but later executed an affidavit of desistance. During cross-examination, she admitted receiving P30,000 to sign the affidavit, which was prepared by the accused’s counsel.

Truth unchanged

When questioned by the court, however, the minor maintained that her earlier testimony was true.

The Regional Trial Court 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 conviction.

The SC 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, their parents or legal guardians.

The court said such affidavits must be treated with caution because they may result from coercion, pressure, or undue influence, particularly when the victim is a child.

The SC also stressed that once a criminal case is filed in court, the complainant no longer decides whether it proceeds. The State has an interest in prosecuting the offense.