Can a Complainant Withdraw a Case for Usurpation of Authority (Article 177) in the Philippines?

Executive summary

Short answer: No. In a prosecution for Usurpation of Authority or Official Functions (Article 177, Revised Penal Code), the complainant cannot unilaterally “withdraw” the case. Crimes are offenses against the State. A private complainant’s affidavit of desistance does not bind the prosecutor or the court and, by itself, does not dismiss a criminal case. The public prosecutor decides whether to proceed before filing, and once an Information is filed, control shifts to the court.

Below is a complete guide to the law, procedure, defenses, penalties, and the limited situations where a private party’s wishes might still matter.

The offense: Article 177, Revised Penal Code (RPC)

Two modes

Usurpation of authority – knowingly and falsely representing oneself to be an officer, agent, or representative of any department or agency of the Philippine government (or a foreign government).
Usurpation of official functions – under pretense of official position and without lawful entitlement, performing any act pertaining to a public officer.

Key ideas

It is typically treated as a public offense (no private complainant is required to start prosecution).
Knowledge and falsity (for the first mode) and lack of lawful entitlement + pretense of office (for the second) are central.
Good faith—e.g., an honest mistake about authority—can negate liability.

Penalty

Prisión correccional, minimum to medium (6 months and 1 day to 4 years and 2 months), plus accessory penalties.
Bailable as a matter of right before conviction.

Prescription

Offenses punishable by correctional penalties generally prescribe in 10 years (counted from discovery/commission, subject to tolling rules).

Who “owns” the case?

Offended party vs. the State Even if a specific person or entity reports the act (e.g., a citizen, agency, or business that was deceived), the crime primarily injures public order and government authority. Hence, the State is the offended party.
Before filing in court (investigation stage) The public prosecutor exercises prosecutorial discretion. A complainant’s refusal to cooperate may influence evidentiary sufficiency, but does not compel dismissal. Prosecutors may dismiss for lack of probable cause if, after evaluation of all available evidence (with or without the complainant), the elements cannot be established.
After filing in court (trial stage) The case is under the control of the court. The prosecutor may move to dismiss or withdraw the Information, but only the court can grant dismissal. A complainant’s desistance is not controlling.

Affidavit of desistance, “withdrawal,” or settlement: What they really do

Not binding. Courts traditionally view affidavits of desistance with caution because they can be motivated by compromise, intimidation, or other extraneous reasons. They do not bar prosecution of public crimes like Article 177.
Evidentiary effect. If the complainant was a material witness and now refuses to testify, the prosecution may suffer—but prosecutors can rely on other evidence (documents, photos/videos, other witnesses, admissions, seized uniforms or badges, etc.).
Civil liability. A complainant may waive or settle civil claims (e.g., damages for deceit or reputational harm). Such private settlements do not extinguish criminal liability for Article 177.
No private pardon. Private forgiveness or “pardon” has no effect on public crimes like usurpation of authority.

The narrow exceptions (when a complainant’s will can control a case)

Crimes that legally require a private complaint (e.g., adultery/concubinage, seduction, abduction, acts of lasciviousness, and defamation imputing unchastity) are different. There, a valid pardon/withdrawal before the institution of the action (or marriage in some cases) can bar prosecution.
Article 177 is NOT one of these. It does not require a private complaint and cannot be terminated by private pardon or desistance.

Barangay settlement (Katarungang Pambarangay)

Barangay conciliation generally covers offenses punishable by imprisonment not exceeding 1 year or fine not exceeding ₱5,000, subject to parties’ residence and other jurisdictional rules.
Article 177’s penalty (up to 4 years and 2 months) normally exceeds that threshold. Even if the Lupong Tagapamayapa attempts mediation, any settlement cannot extinguish the criminal action for a public offense beyond its coverage.

Typical procedural paths

Complaint & investigation
- Police or NBI may conduct inquest/prelim investigation. Anyone with knowledge may file a complaint; agency-victims (e.g., a bureau whose functions were usurped) often assist.
- If probable cause exists, the prosecutor files an Information in court.
If the complainant “withdraws” before filing
- Prosecutor still assesses all evidence.
- Dismissal may occur only if probable cause is lacking without the complainant’s testimony. Otherwise, the case can proceed.
If the complainant “withdraws” after filing
- Prosecutor may move to dismiss (e.g., due to witness unavailability), but the court decides.
- The court can deny dismissal if other evidence suffices.
Trial, plea, and judgment
- Plea bargaining to a necessarily included offense is possible with court approval and the prosecutor’s conformity; the private complainant’s consent is not controlling (though often consulted).
- On conviction, the Indeterminate Sentence Law applies; first-time offenders may be eligible for probation if the maximum term imposed does not exceed 6 years and other statutory disqualifications are absent.

Elements & proof: Practical checklist

Usurpation of authority

Did the accused represent themself as a government/foreign government officer/agent/representative?
Was the representation knowingly false? (Proof: badges, IDs, uniforms, introduction, documents, verbal claims.)
Context showing intent to pass as such (e.g., demanding compliance, asserting powers of arrest/inspection).

Usurpation of official functions

Did the accused perform an act pertaining to a public officer (e.g., arrest, seizure, inspection, issuance of permits, collecting fees)?
Was it done under pretense of official position without lawful authority?

Corroborating evidence

Physical exhibits: fake IDs, uniforms, marked forms, seals, receipts.
Electronic evidence: messages, posts, emails arranging “operations.”
Testimony: victims, bystanders, real public officers who were impersonated, arresting officers.
Expert/agency verification: certification that the accused is not an officer/agent or lacked deputation/appointment.

Common defenses

Good faith / mistake of fact: Belief in valid deputation or authority (must be reasonable and supported, e.g., prior appointment papers or expired authority unknown to the accused).
No false representation / no pretense: Mere possession of an item (e.g., surplus uniform) without holding oneself out as an officer is insufficient.
Act not pertaining to a public officer: The conduct must be something legally attributable to public office.
Identity/credibility attacks on witnesses; chain of custody or authenticity issues for seized items.

Practical answers to frequent questions

Can the complainant withdraw the case? They can execute an affidavit of desistance, but it does not automatically dismiss the case. Prosecutors and courts are not bound by it.
If the private complainant refuses to testify, will the case die? Not necessarily. The State may proceed if other evidence can prove the elements beyond reasonable doubt.
Can parties just “settle” and end it? No, not for Article 177. Any civil compromise does not erase criminal liability for a public offense.
Who can file the complaint initially? Anyone with knowledge; often the police/NBI or the affected agency initiates. The lack of a private complainant does not block prosecution.
What if the accused repaid money or apologized? That may mitigate civil damages or be considered in sentencing (e.g., as a mitigating circumstance of voluntary surrender or restitution if applicable), but it does not extinguish criminal liability.

Practical tips for complainants, accused, and counsel

For complainants / agencies
- Provide documentary verification that the accused is not an officer/agent, and explain why the act is a public function.
- Even if you later lose interest, inform the prosecutor rather than signing boilerplate desistance documents.
For the accused
- Gather proof of authority (appointments, deputation orders, special orders); clarify scope and period of any authority.
- Consider pre-trial resolution (plea to included offense if appropriate) or probation upon conviction, subject to statutory rules.
For counsel
- Evaluate whether the case is really Article 177 or better fits another offense (e.g., estafa, falsification, or special laws on uniforms/insignia); misclassification can be a defense or a plea-bargaining avenue.
- If desistance occurs, assess whether remaining evidence still meets the standard of proof; move accordingly.

Bottom line

Article 177 prosecutions are State-driven.
A complainant’s withdrawal or affidavit of desistance does not, by itself, terminate the case.
Dismissal may occur only: (a) pre-filing, if the prosecutor finds no probable cause; or (b) post-filing, if the court grants a motion to dismiss/withdraw or later acquits for lack of proof.
Settlements and private pardons are ineffective against the criminal aspect of usurpation of authority.