Can a Criminal Case Proceed Even If the Complainant Withdraws the Complaint? A Philippine Legal Perspective

Introduction

In the Philippine legal system, criminal prosecutions are fundamentally actions by the State against individuals who violate penal laws. This principle stems from the constitutional mandate that crimes are offenses against society as a whole, not merely private wrongs. A common question arises: What happens if the complainant—the person who initially reports the crime—withdraws their complaint? Can the criminal case still move forward?

The short answer is yes, in most instances, a criminal case can proceed despite the complainant's withdrawal. This is because once a criminal complaint is formalized and probable cause is established, the prosecution becomes a matter of public interest, handled by the State through the public prosecutor. However, nuances exist depending on the nature of the crime, the stage of the proceedings, and specific legal requirements. This article explores the topic comprehensively, drawing from the Revised Penal Code (RPC), the Rules of Court, relevant statutes, and jurisprudence from the Supreme Court of the Philippines.

The Nature of Criminal Actions in the Philippines

Public vs. Private Crimes

Philippine criminal law distinguishes between public crimes and private crimes (also known as private offenses), which significantly impacts whether a complainant's withdrawal halts a case.

Public Crimes: These are offenses that affect society at large and can be prosecuted by the State without the offended party's initiative. Examples include murder, robbery, theft, estafa (swindling), drug-related offenses under the Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act (Republic Act No. 9165), and corruption under the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act (RA 3019). For public crimes, the complainant is merely a witness, and their withdrawal does not terminate the case. The State, represented by the fiscal or prosecutor, has the discretion to continue based on available evidence.
Private Crimes: These are offenses where the law requires the offended party's active participation for prosecution to commence. Under Article 344 of the RPC, private crimes include adultery, concubinage, seduction, abduction, rape (prior to amendments), and acts of lasciviousness. However, significant changes have occurred:
- Rape was reclassified as a public crime under the Anti-Rape Law of 1997 (RA 8353), meaning it can now be prosecuted even without the victim's complaint.
- For remaining private crimes, the complaint must be filed by the offended party, their parents, grandparents, or guardians (in cases of minors or incompetents). If the complainant withdraws, it could potentially lead to dismissal, but only if done before trial begins and with the accused's consent in some contexts.

Even for private crimes, once the case is filed in court, it may not be easily dismissed solely on withdrawal, as the court evaluates the public interest.

The Role of the Complainant

The complainant, often the victim or offended party, initiates the process by filing a complaint-affidavit with the police or prosecutor's office. This triggers a preliminary investigation under Rule 112 of the Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure. If the prosecutor finds probable cause, they file an information in court, transforming the case into "People of the Philippines v. Accused."

At this point, the complainant loses control over the prosecution. They become a witness for the State, and their unwillingness to testify or withdrawal does not automatically end the case. Prosecutors can compel testimony via subpoena, and other evidence (e.g., documents, witnesses, forensics) can sustain the prosecution.

The Affidavit of Desistance: A Key Mechanism for Withdrawal

A complainant may withdraw support through an affidavit of desistance, a sworn statement expressing disinterest in pursuing the case, often due to settlement, forgiveness, or realization of a mistake. Jurisprudence has clarified its effects:

Not Automatically Binding: In People v. Ocate (G.R. No. 116825, 2000), the Supreme Court held that an affidavit of desistance does not divest the court of jurisdiction or compel dismissal. It is merely evidentiary and subject to scrutiny. The prosecutor assesses if it's voluntary and if public interest demands continuation.
Timing Matters:
- Pre-Filing of Information: Withdrawal before the prosecutor files in court may prevent the case from advancing.
- Post-Filing but Pre-Trial: The court may dismiss on motion, but only if the desistance is genuine and no double jeopardy attaches.
- During Trial: Desistance has minimal effect. In People v. Relova (G.R. No. L-45129, 1987), the Court emphasized that once trial begins, the State pursues the case independently.
Scrutiny for Validity: Courts examine desistance for coercion, payment, or fraud. In Crespo v. Mogul (G.R. No. L-53373, 1987), it was ruled that the Secretary of Justice (now Department of Justice) cannot order dismissal post-information filing without court approval. If desistance suggests settlement in public crimes, it may not suffice, as some offenses (e.g., serious physical injuries) cannot be compromised under Article 2034 of the Civil Code.
Exceptions in Private Crimes: For adultery or concubinage, express pardon by the offended spouse before trial can lead to dismissal (Article 344, RPC). However, if the accused is a public official, additional considerations apply under anti-graft laws.

Jurisprudential Insights

Supreme Court decisions provide depth:

Continuation Despite Withdrawal: In People v. Ilarde (G.R. No. 120507, 2001), the Court upheld conviction for estafa despite the complainant's desistance, noting sufficient other evidence.
Victim's Reluctance: In child abuse cases under RA 7610 (Special Protection of Children Against Abuse, Exploitation and Discrimination Act), even if the child victim recants, the case proceeds if corroborated by other proof, as in People v. Court of Appeals (G.R. No. 103613, 2001).
Rape Cases: Post-RA 8353 and RA 9262 (Anti-Violence Against Women and Their Children Act), rape and related offenses are public crimes. Withdrawal or settlement does not bar prosecution, as seen in People v. Dela Torre (G.R. No. 121940, 1998), where the victim's affidavit was disregarded due to intimidation suspicions.
Quasi-Offenses: In reckless imprudence cases (Article 365, RPC), civil liability can be settled, but criminal liability persists unless desistance is accepted pre-trial.
Special Laws: Under the Cybercrime Prevention Act (RA 10175), offenses like cyberlibel can proceed on the prosecutor's initiative. In environmental crimes under RA 8550 (Fisheries Code), public interest overrides private withdrawal.

Procedural Aspects and Remedies

Stages Where Withdrawal May Influence

Investigation Stage: Complainant can withdraw via non-cooperation, potentially leading to dismissal for lack of probable cause.
Preliminary Investigation: Prosecutor may recommend dismissal if desistance is filed.
Court Proceedings: Motion to dismiss under Rule 119, Section 17, but granted only if in the interest of justice.
Appeals: Even on appeal, new desistance may be considered, but rarely reverses convictions without strong grounds.

Remedies for the Accused

If desistance exists, the accused can file a motion to quash (Rule 117) or demurrer to evidence (Rule 119, Section 23), arguing insufficient evidence.

State's Discretion

The Department of Justice Circular No. 41 (2001) guides prosecutors: Desistance in public crimes does not warrant automatic dismissal; evaluation of evidence is key.

Exceptions and Limitations

Compromise Agreements: Allowed for minor offenses like slight physical injuries (Article 266, RPC) or alarms and scandals, but not for grave felonies.
Pardon in Private Crimes: Must be express and before criminal action (Article 344, RPC). Implied pardon (e.g., continued cohabitation) may apply in adultery.
Juvenile Justice: Under RA 9344, diversion programs may consider victim's consent, but withdrawal doesn't always end cases.
Human Rights Considerations: In extrajudicial killing probes, victim's family withdrawal doesn't stop investigations under international obligations.
COVID-19 and Procedural Adjustments: During the pandemic, Supreme Court issuances allowed virtual hearings, but core principles on desistance remained unchanged.

Conclusion

In the Philippines, the withdrawal of a complaint by the complainant does not inherently terminate a criminal case, as prosecutions serve public welfare. For public crimes, the State retains control, ensuring accountability even if the victim steps back. Private crimes offer limited exceptions, primarily through pardon or pre-trial desistance. Ultimately, courts and prosecutors balance individual reconciliation with societal protection, guided by evidence and justice. Parties should consult legal counsel, as outcomes depend on case specifics. This framework underscores the Philippine justice system's commitment to the rule of law over private whims.