Introduction

In the Philippine legal system, the Affidavit of Desistance serves as a crucial instrument in criminal proceedings, allowing complainants to formally withdraw their interest in pursuing a case. Rooted in the principles of restorative justice and the recognition of private interests in certain offenses, this affidavit reflects the balance between individual rights and public interest in prosecution. However, its validity, effects, and the permissible reasons for execution—particularly whether a monetary settlement can be explicitly stated as the basis—raise intricate legal questions. This article explores the concept comprehensively within the Philippine context, examining its legal foundations, procedural aspects, jurisprudential interpretations, limitations, and specific considerations regarding financial settlements.

Definition and Nature of an Affidavit of Desistance

An Affidavit of Desistance is a sworn statement executed by the complainant or offended party in a criminal case, declaring their intention to desist from further prosecuting the complaint. It is essentially a manifestation of forgiveness, loss of interest, or reconciliation with the accused. Unlike a mere withdrawal of complaint, it is a formal document that must be notarized and subscribed before a competent authority, such as a notary public or a prosecutor.

In Philippine jurisprudence, the affidavit is not considered an absolute bar to prosecution but rather a factor that may influence the discretion of the prosecutor or the court. This stems from the constitutional mandate under Article III, Section 1 of the 1987 Philippine Constitution, which upholds due process, and the Revised Penal Code (RPC), which distinguishes between public and private crimes. Public crimes, such as murder or robbery, are offenses against the state and cannot be waived by private parties. Private crimes, like adultery, concubinage, seduction, abduction, rape (prior to amendments), and acts of lasciviousness, require the active participation of the offended party for initiation and continuation.

The affidavit is often used in cases involving economic offenses, such as estafa (swindling), violations of Batas Pambansa Blg. 22 (BP 22 or the Bouncing Checks Law), theft, or qualified theft, where civil liability intertwines with criminal responsibility. It embodies the principle that the criminal justice system should not be burdened with cases where the parties have amicably resolved their differences.

Legal Basis and Procedural Requirements

The legal foundation for the Affidavit of Desistance can be traced to several sources:

Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure (2000 Rules, as amended): Rule 110, Section 5 emphasizes that criminal actions are instituted by the filing of a complaint or information. For private crimes, the complaint must be filed by the offended party. An affidavit of desistance can lead to the dismissal of the case at the preliminary investigation stage or even after arraignment, subject to court approval.
Jurisprudence: Landmark cases like People v. Vergara (G.R. No. 101557, 1993) clarify that an affidavit of desistance does not automatically extinguish criminal liability. The Supreme Court has consistently held that once a criminal case is filed in court, it becomes a matter of public interest, and the desistance of the complainant does not divest the court of jurisdiction (People v. Cuyos, G.R. No. 200681, 2014).

Procedurally, the affidavit must:

Be voluntarily executed without coercion, intimidation, or undue influence.
Clearly state the reasons for desistance.
Be supported by evidence if necessary, such as receipts for settlements.
Be filed with the prosecutor during preliminary investigation or with the court post-filing.
In some instances, require the consent of the accused, especially if it involves quashing an information.

Failure to meet these requirements may render the affidavit invalid, potentially leading to charges of perjury under Article 183 of the RPC if false statements are made.

Effects and Limitations of the Affidavit

The effects of an Affidavit of Desistance vary by stage of proceedings:

Pre-Filing or Preliminary Investigation: It can prevent the filing of an information in court, as the prosecutor may find no probable cause or recommend dismissal based on the complainant's lack of interest.
Post-Filing but Pre-Arraignment: The prosecutor may move for dismissal, but the court has discretion to approve or deny.
Post-Arraignment: Dismissal requires a motion and hearing, and the court may deny if public interest demands continuation. Double jeopardy may attach if dismissal is granted without the accused's consent in certain scenarios.

Limitations include:

Non-Extinguishment of Criminal Liability: As reiterated in People v. Dapitan (G.R. No. 128042, 1999), desistance does not erase the crime; it merely affects prosecution.
Suspicious Circumstances: If the affidavit appears coerced or induced by payment, courts may disregard it (People v. Araneta, G.R. No. 137604, 2002).
Re-Filing: In some cases, a new complaint can be filed if new evidence emerges, though res judicata may apply.
Civil Aspect: Desistance does not bar civil claims; under Article 100 of the RPC, every crime gives rise to civil liability, which can be pursued separately.

Monetary Settlement as a Stated Reason: Legality and Implications

A pivotal question is whether a monetary settlement can be explicitly stated as the reason for executing an Affidavit of Desistance. In the Philippine context, this intersects with laws on compounding crimes, public policy, and ethical considerations.

Permissibility Under Law

General Rule: Monetary settlements are common in resolving disputes, particularly in economic crimes where restitution forms part of the resolution. For instance, in BP 22 cases, payment of the check amount plus interests often leads to desistance (People v. Laggui, G.R. No. 170307, 2007). Similarly, in estafa, full restitution can mitigate penalties or lead to probation.
Explicit Statement of Monetary Settlement: While not prohibited outright, stating monetary settlement as the sole or primary reason can be problematic. Article 213 of the RPC penalizes "compounding" or agreeing not to prosecute a crime in exchange for compensation, except for light felonies or when the offender is a relative. However, for crimes with civil indemnity, such as those under the Negotiable Instruments Law or estafa, settlements are tolerated as they address the civil aspect without necessarily compounding the crime.

Jurisprudence allows affidavits where the reason is phrased as "amicable settlement" or "full satisfaction of civil liability," implying monetary payment without direct admission of compounding (Sy v. People, G.R. No. 182178, 2009). Explicitly stating "in consideration of monetary settlement" may invite scrutiny, as it could be interpreted as violating public policy against "buying justice." In People v. Ocapan (G.R. No. 94350, 1992), the Supreme Court cautioned against affidavits induced by payment, viewing them as contrary to the administration of justice.

Risks and Consequences

Invalidation: If the court finds the affidavit was executed solely for money without genuine forgiveness, it may be set aside. This is evident in cases involving violence or grave offenses, where monetary inducement is seen as undermining justice (People v. Dela Cruz, G.R. No. 135554, 2002).
Criminal Liability for Parties: The complainant risks perjury if the affidavit is false, while the accused or intermediaries could face charges for bribery (Article 210-211, RPC) or obstruction of justice (Presidential Decree No. 1829).
Ethical and Policy Concerns: The Philippine legal system prioritizes restorative justice, as seen in Republic Act No. 9344 (Juvenile Justice and Welfare Act) and alternative dispute resolution mechanisms. However, explicit monetary reasons may perpetuate inequality, where wealth influences outcomes, conflicting with equal protection under the law.

Best Practices

To mitigate issues:

Phrase reasons neutrally, e.g., "due to amicable settlement and loss of interest in pursuing the case."
Attach evidence of settlement, like receipts or compromise agreements.
Ensure the affidavit affirms voluntariness and absence of coercion.
In corporate or commercial disputes, frame it as satisfaction of obligations under civil law.

Jurisprudential Evolution and Recent Developments

Philippine case law has evolved to scrutinize affidavits more rigorously:

Early cases like People v. Miranda (G.R. No. L-27943, 1968) gave weight to desistance in private crimes.
Post-Martial Law decisions emphasized public interest, as in Crespo v. Mogul (G.R. No. L-53373, 1987), affirming prosecutorial discretion.
Recent rulings under the Duterte and Marcos administrations, amid anti-crime campaigns, show courts less inclined to honor desistance in drug or corruption cases, even with settlements.
In the context of the COVID-19 pandemic and economic hardships, courts have shown leniency in economic offenses where settlements alleviate complainant hardships.

Advantages, Criticisms, and Reforms

Advantages:

Reduces court congestion.
Promotes reconciliation and victim-centered justice.
Allows flexibility in minor offenses.

Criticisms:

Potential for abuse, such as extortion by complainants or undue influence by accused.
Undermines deterrence for crimes.
Disparities based on socioeconomic status.

Proposed Reforms:

Stricter guidelines from the Department of Justice (DOJ) on affidavit scrutiny.
Integration with mediation programs under the Katarungang Pambarangay Law (Republic Act No. 7160).
Legislative amendments to clarify compounding exceptions.

Conclusion

The Affidavit of Desistance remains a vital tool in the Philippine criminal justice system, bridging private resolutions with public accountability. While monetary settlements are implicitly acceptable in many cases, explicitly stating them as the reason demands caution to avoid legal pitfalls like compounding or invalidation. Practitioners must navigate this with diligence, ensuring affidavits reflect genuine intent rather than transactional motives. Ultimately, the affidavit's efficacy hinges on judicial discretion, underscoring the need for transparency and adherence to due process in pursuit of equitable justice.