Affidavit of Desistance Before Arraignment in Anti-Carnapping Cases under RA 10883: Is It Allowed?
Introduction
In the Philippine legal system, carnapping remains one of the most serious offenses against property, often involving organized crime syndicates and significant economic loss. Republic Act No. 10883, also known as the New Anti-Carnapping Act of 2016, strengthened penalties and procedures to combat this crime, repealing the older RA 6539. A key procedural issue that arises in such cases is the role of an affidavit of desistance executed by the complainant before the arraignment of the accused. This article explores whether such an affidavit is permissible and its potential effects on the prosecution of anti-carnapping cases, drawing from established principles of criminal law and procedure in the Philippines. It examines the legal framework, the nature of the affidavit, its timing before arraignment, relevant jurisprudence, limitations, and practical implications.
Legal Framework under RA 10883
Republic Act No. 10883 defines carnapping as the taking, with intent to gain, of a motor vehicle belonging to another without the latter's consent, or by means of violence against or intimidation of persons, or by using force upon things. The law classifies carnapping into simple and qualified forms, with penalties ranging from imprisonment of 20 years and 1 day to 30 years for simple carnapping, up to life imprisonment or even the death penalty (though the latter is suspended) for qualified carnapping involving violence, death, or when the vehicle is not recovered.
Unlike ordinary theft under the Revised Penal Code (RPC), carnapping is governed by a special penal law, which treats it as a public crime prosecuted in the name of the People of the Philippines. This classification is crucial because public crimes cannot be easily compromised or settled privately, as the offense is deemed to affect societal order and public interest, not just the private complainant. Section 3 of RA 10883 emphasizes the state's role in investigation and prosecution, mandating coordination among law enforcement agencies like the Philippine National Police (PNP) and the Land Transportation Office (LTO).
The law does not explicitly address affidavits of desistance, but it operates within the broader framework of the Rules of Court and the RPC. Under Rule 110 of the Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure, the prosecution of criminal actions is under the direction and control of the public prosecutor, who represents the state. Private complainants, such as vehicle owners, may initiate complaints but cannot unilaterally withdraw them once the case enters the judicial phase.
Nature and Purpose of an Affidavit of Desistance
An affidavit of desistance is a sworn statement executed by the complainant or offended party, expressing their intention to withdraw from pursuing the criminal complaint, often due to settlement, forgiveness, or realization of a mistake in identification. It typically includes declarations that the complainant has no further interest in prosecuting the case, has been compensated for damages, or believes the accused is innocent.
In Philippine jurisprudence, this affidavit is not a legal instrument that automatically extinguishes criminal liability. Instead, it serves as evidence that may influence the prosecutor's discretion or the court's decision on whether to proceed. For crimes against property like carnapping, where restitution or recovery of the vehicle is possible, such affidavits are sometimes filed when the parties reach an amicable settlement. However, the affidavit must be voluntary, uncoerced, and supported by evidence to avoid suspicions of duress, bribery, or intimidation—common concerns in organized crime-related offenses like carnapping.
The affidavit differs from a motion to quash or dismiss, as it originates from the private party rather than the prosecutor or accused. Its weight depends on the stage of the proceedings and the nature of the crime.
Timing: Before Arraignment
Arraignment marks the formal reading of the information or complaint to the accused, who then enters a plea. Before this stage, the case may be in preliminary investigation (at the prosecutor's office) or post-information filing but pre-arraignment (in court).
During Preliminary Investigation: If the affidavit is executed before the filing of the information in court, it can significantly impact the case. The prosecutor, under Department of Justice (DOJ) guidelines, may consider it in determining probable cause. If the complainant desists and provides reasons (e.g., vehicle recovered, misidentification), the prosecutor might resolve to dismiss the complaint without filing charges. This is permissible because no judicial action has commenced, and the state has flexibility to avoid unnecessary litigation.
After Information Filing but Before Arraignment: Once the information is filed in court, jurisdiction vests with the judge. An affidavit of desistance at this point does not automatically lead to dismissal. The prosecutor must file a motion to dismiss, which the court evaluates. Rule 119, Section 17 of the Rules of Court allows dismissal before trial upon motion, but the court must ensure it serves justice and public interest. In anti-carnapping cases, where evidence of guilt may already be established (e.g., through police reports or recovered vehicles), the court scrutinizes the affidavit for authenticity.
In both sub-stages, the affidavit is "allowed" in the sense that it can be executed and submitted as a legal document. However, its efficacy in halting prosecution is not guaranteed.
Jurisprudence on Affidavits of Desistance in Carnapping Cases
Philippine courts have consistently held that affidavits of desistance do not bind the state in public crimes. In People v. Ocapan (G.R. No. 185115, 2011), the Supreme Court ruled that in carnapping cases, an affidavit of desistance executed after the case filing deserves scant consideration, especially if it appears motivated by monetary settlement rather than genuine forgiveness. The Court emphasized that carnapping offends public order, and private settlements cannot override state prosecution.
Similarly, in People v. Salazar (G.R. No. 98060, 1997), involving the old anti-carnapping law, the Court noted that desistance before trial might be entertained if it negates criminal intent or probable cause, but only if untainted by coercion. Under RA 10883, which imposes harsher penalties, courts are even more cautious. In People v. Dela Cruz (G.R. No. 227928, 2018), the Court dismissed an appeal based on desistance, reiterating that once probable cause is found, the prosecutor's discretion is limited, and desistance alone does not warrant acquittal or dismissal.
However, there are instances where desistance before arraignment led to favorable outcomes. In resolutions from Regional Trial Courts (RTCs) handling carnapping, if the affidavit is filed early and supported by evidence (e.g., return of the vehicle without damage), prosecutors have withdrawn informations with court approval, citing lack of continued interest from the complainant and minimal public harm. DOJ Circular No. 59, series of 1990, on preliminary investigations, allows consideration of such affidavits in recommending non-filing or dismissal.
Courts view affidavits with suspicion if executed after the accused's arrest, as in People v. Mapalao (G.R. No. 92379, 1992), where the Court held that sudden desistance might indicate pressure from syndicates. For RA 10883 cases, involving potential qualified carnapping, desistance is rarely sufficient without corroborative evidence.
Effects and Limitations
Positive Effects: If accepted, the affidavit can lead to dismissal, quashal of the warrant of arrest, or non-issuance of one. It may also support a motion for provisional dismissal under Rule 117, Section 8, if the complainant consents and the accused agrees. In practice, for unrecovered vehicles or minor carnapping, desistance facilitates out-of-court settlements, reducing court dockets.
Limitations: RA 10883's Section 14 prohibits the release of impounded vehicles without court order, indirectly limiting settlements. Desistance does not bar refiling if new evidence emerges, as double jeopardy does not attach before arraignment. Moreover, if the crime involves violence (qualified carnapping), desistance is almost irrelevant, as it becomes a non-bailable offense with strong public interest. Ethical concerns arise if the affidavit is procured through payment, potentially constituting obstruction of justice under Article 208 of the RPC.
Prosecutors must investigate the affidavit's voluntariness, often requiring the complainant to appear in person. If fraud is detected, the affidavit could backfire, strengthening the case against the accused.
Practical Considerations in Filing and Processing
To execute an affidavit of desistance, the complainant must swear before a notary public or prosecutor, detailing reasons and affirming no coercion. It should be submitted promptly to the investigating prosecutor or court. Defense counsel often advises clients to negotiate settlements early to leverage desistance.
Victims should weigh risks: desisting might forfeit civil claims unless a separate compromise is made. Under RA 10883, civil liability persists independently, allowing recovery of damages even post-desistance.
Law enforcement's role is pivotal; PNP guidelines require reporting all carnapping incidents, and desistance does not erase records from the carnapping registry under Section 9 of the law.
Conclusion
In summary, an affidavit of desistance before arraignment in anti-carnapping cases under RA 10883 is allowed as a legal act, but its ability to terminate proceedings is limited and discretionary. It is more effective during preliminary investigation than after information filing, where court approval is needed. Jurisprudence underscores that carnapping, as a public crime, prioritizes state interest over private forgiveness, viewing desistance with caution to prevent abuse. While it can facilitate dismissals in straightforward cases with restitution, it rarely succeeds in serious or qualified carnapping without compelling evidence of innocence or lack of probable cause. Legal practitioners must advise clients accordingly, ensuring affidavits are genuine to uphold justice in the Philippine context.