Can a Rape Case Be Settled or Dismissed by Agreement in the Philippines? Court Appearance and Legal Effects

Introduction

In the Philippines, rape is a grave criminal offense governed primarily by Republic Act No. 8353 (RA 8353), also known as the Anti-Rape Law of 1997. This law amended Articles 335 and related provisions of the Revised Penal Code (RPC), reclassifying rape from a "crime against chastity" to a "crime against persons." This reclassification underscores the public nature of the offense, emphasizing that rape violates not just individual dignity but societal order and public welfare. Subsequent laws, such as Republic Act No. 9262 (RA 9262), the Anti-Violence Against Women and Their Children Act of 2004, further integrate rape into frameworks addressing gender-based violence, particularly when committed against spouses, partners, or children.

The query at hand explores whether a rape case can be settled or dismissed through mutual agreement between the parties involved, the necessity of court appearances, and the broader legal ramifications. Given the public interest in prosecuting such crimes, Philippine jurisprudence and statutes impose strict limitations on private resolutions. This article comprehensively examines these aspects, drawing from statutory provisions, Supreme Court rulings, and procedural rules, to provide a thorough understanding in the Philippine legal context.

Nature of Rape as a Public Crime

Rape, as defined under Article 266-A of the RPC (as amended), includes acts such as carnal knowledge through force, threat, or intimidation; deprivation of reason or consciousness; fraudulent machinations; or when the victim is under 18 years old and the offender is a relative or authority figure (statutory rape). Penalties range from reclusion perpetua (20-40 years imprisonment) to death in qualified cases, such as when the victim is a minor or the act results in death.

Crucially, rape is classified as a public crime. Unlike private crimes (e.g., oral defamation under Article 358 of the RPC), which require the offended party's complaint to initiate prosecution and can be extinguished by pardon or desistance before trial, public crimes like rape are prosecuted by the state in the name of the People of the Philippines. This means the fiscal (prosecutor) has the authority—and often the duty—to pursue the case even if the victim withdraws support. The rationale is to protect vulnerable individuals from coercion, ensure justice, and deter future offenses.

Supreme Court decisions, such as in People v. Dela Cerna (G.R. No. 136976-77, 2002), affirm that once a rape complaint is filed, it becomes a matter of public interest, and the victim's role shifts from complainant to witness.

Possibility of Settlement or Compromise

General Rule: No Settlement by Agreement

Philippine law prohibits the settlement or compromise of rape cases through private agreements. Under Rule 111, Section 1 of the Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure, criminal actions are instituted for public offenses without needing the victim's initiative beyond the initial complaint. More explicitly, Section 5 of RA 9262 prohibits mediation or conciliation for acts constituting violence against women and children, including rape in domestic contexts. This aligns with the policy against "amicable settlements" in serious crimes, as they could undermine justice and encourage impunity.

Even monetary compensation or other forms of agreement (e.g., marriage proposals or financial support) cannot lead to dismissal. Historical provisions allowing extinguishment of liability through marriage (under the old Article 344 of the RPC) were repealed by RA 8353. Article 266-C now states that subsequent valid marriage between the offender and victim does not extinguish criminal liability for rape, though it may reduce penalties in certain non-qualified cases. Pardon by the offended party, whether express or implied, also does not halt prosecution, as ruled in People v. Bonaagua (G.R. No. 188897, 2011).

Affidavit of Desistance: Limited Effect

An affidavit of desistance—a sworn statement by the victim withdrawing the complaint—is sometimes filed in attempts to "settle" cases. However, its impact is severely restricted:

Pre-Filing Stage: Before a formal complaint is filed with the prosecutor's office, a victim may retract allegations during preliminary investigation. If no probable cause is found, the case may not proceed to court. However, if evidence is strong (e.g., medical reports, witnesses), the prosecutor may still file charges.
Post-Filing but Pre-Arraignment: After filing in court but before arraignment, desistance might influence dismissal if the court finds it voluntary and uncoerced. But courts scrutinize such affidavits for signs of duress, as in People v. Junio (G.R. No. 110990, 1994), where desistance was rejected due to suspicions of settlement.
Post-Arraignment: Once the accused is arraigned, desistance generally does not lead to dismissal. The case proceeds to trial, and the victim becomes a hostile witness if uncooperative. The Supreme Court in People v. Salico (G.R. No. 172675, 2007) held that desistance after arraignment does not affect the public nature of the offense.

In cases involving minors (statutory rape), desistance is even less effective, as guardians or social workers may intervene, and the state acts in loco parentis under RA 7610 (Child Abuse Law).

Exceptions and Special Considerations

Lack of Evidence: If settlement leads to the victim refusing to testify, and no other evidence exists, the prosecution may fail, resulting in acquittal—not dismissal by agreement.
Plea Bargaining: Under the 2018 Plea Bargaining Framework in Criminal Cases (A.M. No. 18-03-16-SC), plea bargaining is allowed for lesser offenses, but rape is excluded from downgrading in most cases due to its heinous nature. Qualified rape remains non-bailable and non-plea-bargainable.
Civil Aspect: While the criminal case cannot be settled, the civil liability (damages) arising from the crime can be compromised separately under Article 2034 of the Civil Code. However, this does not affect the criminal prosecution.

Court Appearance Requirements

Court appearances are mandatory in rape cases, governed by the Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure and the Speedy Trial Act (RA 8493).

For the Accused

Arraignment: The accused must personally appear for reading of the information and plea entry (Rule 116). Non-appearance leads to bench warrants.
Pre-Trial and Trial: Personal presence is required unless excused (e.g., for identification purposes). In People v. Webb (G.R. No. 176864, 2010), the Court emphasized that trial in absentia is allowed only after arraignment and if the accused unjustifiably fails to appear.
Promulgation of Judgment: The accused must appear for sentencing; absence delays proceedings.

For the Victim

Victims are witnesses, not parties, so appearance is subpoenaed but not always mandatory if other evidence suffices. However, in rape cases, victim testimony is often crucial (the "sweetheart defense" or consent issues require cross-examination).
Under RA 8505 (Rape Victim Assistance and Protection Act of 1998), victims can request closed-door hearings to protect privacy, and courts may allow videotaped depositions for child victims.

Non-appearance by the victim post-desistance can lead to case weakening, but not automatic dismissal.

Legal Effects of Attempts to Settle

Attempts to settle rape cases carry significant risks:

For the Offender

Obstruction of Justice: Under Presidential Decree No. 1829, offering settlements to induce desistance can result in fines or imprisonment (up to 6 years).
Additional Charges: If settlement involves threats or bribes, charges like coercion (Article 286, RPC) or corruption of witnesses may apply.
No Extinguishment: As noted, agreements do not bar prosecution or conviction.

For the Victim

Invalidity of Agreements: Any settlement contract is void as against public policy (Article 1306, Civil Code).
Potential Liability: If desistance is found coerced, the victim might face perjury charges (Article 183, RPC) for false affidavits.
Protection Measures: Victims who recant due to pressure can seek protection under RA 9262 or RA 8505, including restraining orders.

Broader Effects

Jurisprudential Impact: Courts view settlements suspiciously, often interpreting them as admissions of guilt (People v. Espinoza, G.R. No. 132136, 2000).
Societal Ramifications: Allowing settlements could perpetuate cycles of abuse, especially in patriarchal contexts, contravening international commitments like CEDAW (Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women), which the Philippines ratified.
Prescription Periods: Rape prescribes in 20 years (Article 90, RPC), so delayed settlements do not erase liability.

Conclusion

In summary, rape cases in the Philippines cannot be settled or dismissed by mere agreement due to their status as public crimes. While affidavits of desistance may influence early stages, they rarely succeed post-arraignment, and courts prioritize public interest. Mandatory court appearances ensure due process, and attempts to circumvent this through settlements can lead to additional legal penalties. This framework protects victims from coercion and upholds justice, reflecting evolving laws that prioritize gender equality and human rights. Individuals facing such cases should consult licensed attorneys, as this article is for informational purposes and not legal advice. For specific scenarios, reference to the Department of Justice or Supreme Court resources is recommended.