Manila: The Supreme Court (SC) has affirmed the guilty verdict imposed on a female accused, stating that a victim's affidavit of desistance withdrawing a complaint for trafficking cannot be used as a basis to dismiss a case. In a statement on Tuesday, the high tribunal reiterated that once a case reaches the courts, a complainant can no longer decide whether the case should proceed.
According to Philippines News Agency, the Court made this ruling as it affirmed the Regional Trial Court's (RTC) 2019 ruling as well as the Court of Appeals 2023 decision, imposing life imprisonment without eligibility for parole against Mary Joy Dela Torre, who was guilty of qualified trafficking in persons. She had been found guilty of selling a 13-year-old girl for sex in 2016.
The SC, in its ruling, emphasized that "affidavit(s) of desistance lacks evidentiary value in trafficking cases." Citing a provision of Republic Act 9208, or the Anti Trafficking of Persons Act of 2003, the Court stated: "cases of human trafficking cannot be dismissed based on affidavits of desistance."
The Court further explained that this provision aligns with the principle that such affidavits should not be given any material weight in trafficking cases as the victim or witness is generally in a situation of vulnerability or in a position of lesser power or autonomy. The SC noted that the execution of such affidavits does not imply that the witness lacks credibility or has the propensity to commit perjury, but rather they could result from realities and considerations making them unreliable.
The SC also highlighted that "the state is the party affected by the dismissal of the criminal action-not the private complainant," and thus it is up to the state to determine if the case should proceed. Consequently, in the prosecution of the criminal offense, the complainant's role is limited to that of a witness for the prosecution whose interest is solely on the civil liability of the accused.
The court concluded that by itself, an affidavit of desistance or pardon is not a ground for the dismissal of an action once the case has been instituted in court.
