The Supreme Court (SC) has ruled that an affidavit of desistance executed by a victim of exploitation is “highly suspect” and cannot be used as a basis to dismiss a human trafficking case.

In a decision penned by Associate Justice Samuel Gaerlan dated 19 February 2026, the SC Third Division affirmed the conviction of a woman for qualified trafficking in persons involving a minor.

The Court said the accused, who was the minor’s neighbor, recruited the victim to provide sexual services to a man in exchange for money.

The woman brought the minor to a hotel to meet the man and instructed her on how to make it appear that she was still a virgin after having sex.

Court records showed that the woman received money from the man before leaving the room.

The minor later received P15,000 from the man, but the accused took the money and subsequently bought the victim a cellphone and gave her P3,000.

The victim’s mother later discovered the incident and filed a complaint against the woman.

The minor testified in court but subsequently signed an affidavit of desistance seeking to withdraw the complaint.

During cross-examination, however, she admitted receiving P30,000 in exchange for signing the affidavit, which had been prepared by the accused’s counsel.

When questioned further by the court, the minor maintained that her earlier testimony was truthful.

The Regional Trial Court convicted the woman of qualified trafficking in persons under Republic Act 9208, or the Anti-Trafficking in Persons Act of 2003, as amended by RA 10364.

The Court of Appeals affirmed the conviction, giving little weight to the affidavit of desistance because the victim had confirmed the truthfulness of her earlier testimony.

The Supreme Court sustained the conviction.

Citing Section 8 of RA 9208, as amended, the SC held that trafficking cases should not be dismissed based on affidavits of desistance executed by victims, their parents or legal guardians.

The Court said affidavits of desistance by victims of exploitation must be treated with caution because they could have been executed under coercion, pressure or undue influence.

This is particularly important when victims are children who may not fully understand the consequences of withdrawing their testimony, it said.

The SC further stressed that once a criminal case has been filed in court, the complainant no longer has control over whether the prosecution should proceed.

The State has an interest in prosecuting the crime and is affected by the dismissal of a criminal action, the Court said.

An affidavit of desistance, particularly one executed while a trial is ongoing, therefore does not by itself justify the dismissal of a case.

The woman was sentenced to life imprisonment, fined P2 million and ordered to pay the victim P600,000 in damages.