In Philippine criminal law, many parties believe that once the complainant and the accused “settle,” the criminal case is effectively over. That belief is often wrong. In a criminal case, the offense is considered a wrong against the State, not merely against the private complainant. Because of that, the complainant’s forgiveness, withdrawal, or execution of an affidavit of desistance does not automatically extinguish criminal liability, does not automatically require dismissal of the complaint, and does not automatically bind the prosecutor or the court.

This article explains, in Philippine context, how criminal settlement works, what an affidavit of desistance really does, when compromise matters and when it does not, and how prosecutorial discretion operates before and after a case is filed.

I. The basic rule: a crime is a public wrong

A criminal prosecution in the Philippines is generally undertaken in the name of the People of the Philippines. Even when the case begins because a private individual files a complaint, the real party in interest in the criminal aspect is the State.

That is why criminal cases are fundamentally different from civil disputes.

In a civil case, the injured party may often settle and end the litigation because the dispute is primarily private. In a criminal case, however, the complainant cannot, by private agreement alone, decide whether the State will continue prosecuting. The complainant may forgive. The complainant may recant. The complainant may refuse to cooperate. But the decision whether there is probable cause, whether a criminal information should be filed, and whether the case should proceed belongs to public authorities: first the prosecutor, and ultimately the court once the case is filed.

This is the foundation for understanding the limited effect of an affidavit of desistance.

II. What is an affidavit of desistance?

An affidavit of desistance is a sworn statement by the complainant, offended party, or witness declaring that he or she no longer wishes to pursue the complaint, or that the earlier accusation is being withdrawn, softened, or disowned.

It usually appears in one of these forms:

the complainant says the matter has been amicably settled;
the complainant states that he or she is no longer interested in prosecuting;
the complainant retracts prior allegations;
the complainant says the filing of the complaint arose from anger, misunderstanding, or mistake;
the complainant asks that the complaint or case be dismissed.

In practice, it is commonly used in complaints for physical injuries, threats, estafa, theft within families, property-related disputes with criminal overtones, and certain cases arising from personal conflict. It is also frequently submitted in barangay-mediated settlements or after restitution.

But the label does not control the legal effect. Courts and prosecutors look at substance, not the title of the affidavit.

III. An affidavit of desistance does not automatically dismiss a criminal case

This is the most important point.

The general rule in Philippine law is that an affidavit of desistance does not by itself justify dismissal of a criminal complaint or criminal case.

Why?

Because:

criminal liability is not a matter of private convenience;
affidavits of desistance are viewed with caution;
they may be motivated by intimidation, payment, family pressure, fear, or compromise;
the original complaint may still be supported by independent evidence;
witnesses sometimes retract truthful statements for reasons unrelated to the truth.

Philippine doctrine has long treated recantations and desistance with suspicion. A later affidavit does not necessarily erase a prior sworn statement. In fact, a recanting affidavit is often considered inherently unreliable, especially when it contradicts prior declarations made closer to the event or supported by other evidence.

So even if the complainant signs an affidavit of desistance, the prosecutor may still find probable cause. And if the case has already been filed in court, the court may still proceed.

IV. Why the law distrusts desistance and recantation

Courts have repeatedly recognized practical realities.

A complainant may desist because:

money was paid;
relatives intervened;
the parties reconciled;
the complainant got tired of the process;
there was fear of retaliation;
there was emotional pressure;
there was dependency on the accused;
the complainant was induced to sign;
the complainant simply no longer wants public exposure.

None of these reasons necessarily proves that the original complaint was false.

For that reason, Philippine jurisprudence generally says that recantations are exceedingly unreliable. A person who changes a sworn story raises two possibilities: either the first statement was false, or the later statement is false. The law does not automatically assume the later one is true. Often, the earlier statement, made spontaneously and supported by surrounding evidence, is given greater weight.

That is why an affidavit of desistance is merely evidentiary. It is a factor. It is not a command.

V. The stages matter: before filing in court and after filing in court

The legal effect of settlement or desistance depends heavily on the stage of the proceedings.

A. Before the filing of the information in court

At this stage, the prosecutor has wide control over the preliminary investigation or inquest process, subject to law and review mechanisms.

If the complainant executes an affidavit of desistance before the information is filed, the prosecutor may:

dismiss the complaint for lack of probable cause;
require counter-affidavits or clarificatory hearings;
consider the desistance but still file the case if evidence supports probable cause;
downgrade or reclassify the offense if facts justify it;
proceed based on other documentary, testimonial, or physical evidence.

The key question for the prosecutor is not whether the complainant has settled, but whether probable cause exists.

Probable cause in this context means there are sufficient facts and circumstances to engender a well-founded belief that a crime has been committed and that the respondent is probably guilty thereof and should be held for trial.

A prosecutor may therefore say, in effect: “Even if the complainant no longer wishes to proceed, the evidence on record still establishes probable cause.”

B. After the filing of the information in court

Once the information is filed, jurisdiction over the case belongs to the trial court. The prosecutor still represents the People, but dismissal is no longer solely an executive decision.

At this stage:

the prosecutor cannot unilaterally withdraw the case without court approval;
the complainant cannot unilaterally terminate the case;
the court must independently determine whether dismissal or withdrawal is warranted;
the accused’s right against double jeopardy may also become relevant, depending on the procedural posture.

Thus, after filing, even a joint motion to dismiss based on settlement does not automatically end the case. The judge must assess whether the law allows dismissal and whether public interest would be prejudiced.

VI. Prosecutor discretion: what it means and where it comes from

Prosecutorial discretion refers to the authority of the prosecutor to evaluate the evidence, determine the existence or non-existence of probable cause, decide whether to file an information, and, in proper cases, recommend dismissal or withdrawal subject to rules and judicial oversight.

This discretion is substantial but not absolute.

The prosecutor may assess:

whether the elements of the offense appear to be present;
whether the complainant’s allegations are credible;
whether documentary or forensic evidence corroborates the accusation;
whether the desistance affidavit is believable or appears coerced;
whether there are independent witnesses;
whether the offense is one that can be extinguished by valid compromise;
whether public interest demands prosecution.

The prosecutor is not supposed to act as a mere clerk of the complainant. Nor is the prosecutor a passive recorder of private wishes. The prosecutor’s duty is to the law and the People.

This is why a prosecutor may disregard the complainant’s desistance where the evidence still supports prosecution.

VII. Limits on prosecutor discretion

Although broad, prosecutorial discretion is subject to limits.

1. It must be based on evidence

A prosecutor cannot dismiss or file arbitrarily. The decision must rest on the record.

2. It must not be grave abuse of discretion

A patently capricious or whimsical action may be challenged through proper remedies, including review within the Department of Justice and, in exceptional cases, court action.

3. It is reviewable administratively

Resolutions of investigating prosecutors may be reviewed by higher prosecutors or by the Secretary of Justice under the usual rules.

4. Once the case is in court, judicial approval matters

The prosecutor cannot simply undo the case by private agreement with the complainant.

5. Special laws may impose special policies

Certain offenses, especially those affecting public morals, minors, women, children, or the integrity of public institutions, are treated more strictly.

VIII. Settlement in criminal cases: when it matters and when it does not

The phrase “criminal case settlement” can mean different things. Sometimes it means payment of money. Sometimes it means forgiveness. Sometimes it means restitution. Sometimes it means execution of a joint affidavit. Its legal effect depends on the nature of the offense.

A. Crimes generally not extinguished by private settlement

As a rule, compromise or amicable settlement does not extinguish criminal liability for ordinary crimes under the Revised Penal Code or special penal laws, unless a specific law says otherwise.

So, in most cases involving public offenses, settlement affects only these practical matters:

it may weaken witness cooperation;
it may influence prosecutorial appreciation of evidence;
it may support leniency in bail-related or sentencing-related contexts where legally relevant;
it may settle the civil liability arising from the crime;
it may be considered as evidence of restitution or good faith in limited contexts.

But it usually does not erase criminal liability by itself.

B. Settlement may extinguish only the civil aspect

This is common. The parties execute an agreement stating that all claims have been settled. Often, that effectively settles the complainant’s demand for reimbursement, damages, or return of property. But the criminal aspect remains with the State unless the law provides otherwise.

Thus, someone may still face criminal prosecution even after fully paying the complainant.

IX. Important distinction: criminal liability vs. civil liability ex delicto

Every student and practitioner in this area must separate two things:

Criminal liability

This is the liability to the State for violating a penal law.

Civil liability

This is the liability to indemnify the victim, return property, or pay damages arising from the act.

A settlement agreement may validly waive, compromise, or satisfy the civil liability. But that does not necessarily terminate the criminal case.

This is the reason many affidavits of desistance are only partially effective: they can settle money claims, but not the public prosecution.

X. Exceptions and special situations where compromise has legal effect

There are areas in Philippine law where compromise or consent has a more direct legal consequence. These must be handled carefully because they are exceptions, not the general rule.

1. Crimes expressly allowed by law to be compromised

Where the law expressly permits compromise, the compromise can have legal effect on the criminal aspect. The classic example often discussed in Philippine law involves certain tax-related offenses and other regulatory matters where the governing statute specifically allows compromise or administrative settlement.

The point is this: the effect must come from statute, not just from private agreement.

2. Crimes that require a private complaint

Certain offenses historically required initiation by the offended party. In such classes of offenses, pardon by the offended party may have recognized legal effect, but only within the strict boundaries set by law. The analysis here is technical and offense-specific. Not every crime involving personal honor, chastity, or intimate relations follows the same rules today, especially after later statutory reforms.

3. Marriage in limited historical/specific statutory contexts

There are narrow statutory situations in older doctrine where marriage had legal consequences on criminal action for specific offenses. These are not general rules for criminal settlement and should never be casually generalized.

4. Juvenile justice diversion

Where the offender is a child in conflict with the law, diversion and restorative mechanisms may legally alter the path of the criminal process. This is not the same as ordinary private settlement between adult parties. It is a special statutory regime.

5. Barangay conciliation

At the barangay level, amicable settlement may be a prerequisite or procedural incident for disputes falling within Katarungang Pambarangay. But barangay settlement does not automatically override criminal law. Its effect depends on whether the offense is covered, whether it is punishable within the threshold that allows barangay processes, and whether public policy excludes it. Serious offenses are outside barangay compromise.

XI. Affidavit of desistance in preliminary investigation

During preliminary investigation, an affidavit of desistance can be significant, but not decisive.

A prosecutor evaluating it will often ask:

Does the affidavit merely say “I am no longer interested”?
Does it actually explain why the earlier complaint was false?
Does it identify coercion, misunderstanding, or mistaken identity?
Is it detailed or purely formulaic?
Is it supported by objective evidence?
Does it contradict medical findings, documents, texts, CCTV, or other witnesses?
Was it executed freely?
Was the original complaint more detailed and believable?
Are there other available witnesses who can testify?

A bare desistance affidavit that says only “we have amicably settled and I am withdrawing my complaint” is usually weak as a basis for dismissal if the original record otherwise shows probable cause.

A detailed affidavit explaining factual impossibility, mistaken identity, or documentary error may carry much more weight.

So the legal system distinguishes between:

desistance as loss of interest, and
desistance as substantive exculpatory evidence.

Only the second has strong potential to change the probable-cause analysis.

XII. Affidavit of desistance after filing in court

Once trial has begun or the case is pending in court, the affidavit’s effect becomes even narrower.

The court may consider it, but the court must protect public interest and the integrity of criminal proceedings. Several outcomes are possible:

1. The court denies dismissal and continues trial

This is common where the prosecution can proceed using prior statements, other witnesses, documentary evidence, or physical evidence.

2. The complainant turns hostile or refuses to testify

This may weaken the prosecution, but it does not automatically end the case. The prosecution may attempt to impeach the witness, use prior inconsistent statements where allowed, or rely on other evidence.

3. The court ultimately acquits for failure of proof beyond reasonable doubt

This can happen when desistance effectively collapses the prosecution’s evidence. But the acquittal is based on insufficiency of evidence, not on the affidavit itself.

4. The prosecutor moves to dismiss or withdraw, subject to court approval

The judge must make an independent evaluation and is not bound to rubber-stamp the motion.

XIII. Court treatment of retractions and recantations

A retraction is not automatically a credible correction of error. Courts are generally wary because retractions are easy to obtain and hard to test.

Common judicial observations include:

recantations are looked upon with disfavor;
they are exceptionally unreliable;
they can be obtained through pressure or inducement;
they do not necessarily destroy the evidentiary value of prior testimony;
a witness’s change of heart does not itself prove innocence.

Where the original testimony was given in open court and subjected to cross-examination, a later affidavit recanting it is often even weaker.

This is especially true where:

the testimony was corroborated;
the original testimony was detailed;
the retraction is vague;
the retraction appears motivated by settlement or intimidation.

XIV. Settlement and specific offense categories

The practical effect of settlement varies across offense types.

1. Physical injuries, threats, slander, minor interpersonal offenses

Here, settlement often leads complainants to desist. In practice, prosecutors may dismiss weak cases if the complainant’s desistance removes the evidentiary basis. But legally, the result still depends on probable cause and available evidence.

2. Estafa, bouncing checks, fraud-related complaints

Restitution is common, and complainants often lose interest once paid. But payment does not automatically extinguish criminal liability. It may affect intent analysis in some circumstances, may mitigate practical hostility, and may settle civil liability, but the criminal aspect can survive.

3. Theft and property crimes

Return of property does not automatically erase the crime. It may mitigate civil consequences and influence case dynamics, but not necessarily extinguish criminal liability.

4. Domestic or intimate-partner-related offenses

These require special caution. A victim’s desistance may arise from fear, economic dependence, or coercion. In many such cases, the State’s interest in prosecution is particularly strong. Desistance is therefore often given very limited effect.

5. Sexual offenses and crimes involving minors

Desistance is especially suspect here. Public policy strongly resists private extinguishment of criminal accountability. The protection of minors and vulnerable persons outweighs private reconciliation.

6. Homicide, murder, robbery, drug offenses, public corruption, and grave felonies

Settlement has almost no formal extinguishing effect on criminal liability. At most, it may affect the victim’s civil claims or witness cooperation.

XV. Desistance by the complainant is different from lack of probable cause

These are often confused.

Desistance

The complainant says: “I no longer wish to proceed.”

Lack of probable cause

The prosecutor or court concludes: “The evidence is insufficient to support criminal prosecution.”

A case may be dismissed because desistance caused the evidence to collapse. But the legal ground is not the complainant’s private decision. The legal ground is insufficiency of evidence.

This distinction matters because prosecutors and judges are expected to state legal grounds, not simply defer to settlement.

XVI. The evidentiary question: can the case proceed without the complainant?

Yes, sometimes.

A criminal case can proceed without the complainant if the prosecution has other admissible evidence, such as:

medical certificates;
police observations;
CCTV footage;
chat logs or digital records;
independent eyewitnesses;
business records;
forensic results;
admissions by the accused;
object evidence.

In some cases, the complainant is indispensable because the facts depend almost entirely on personal testimony. In others, the complainant’s withdrawal does not defeat the case.

So the effect of desistance is often practical rather than doctrinal: it may make prosecution harder, but not legally impossible.

XVII. Affidavit of desistance and hostile witnesses

When a witness recants, several litigation issues arise:

Can the prosecution still present the witness?
Can the witness be treated as hostile?
Can prior inconsistent statements be used for impeachment?
Is there independent corroboration?
Does the change affect credibility more than substance?
Is the affidavit itself admissible for the truth of its contents, or only to challenge credibility?

A desistance affidavit is not a magic evidentiary device. Its admissibility and weight still depend on the Rules of Court. Out-of-court statements, even sworn ones, may face hearsay limitations if offered for the truth of their contents, unless they fall under a recognized exception or are used in a permitted manner.

This is one reason lawyers should not overestimate the power of the affidavit itself. Its procedural utility may be narrower than expected.

XVIII. The role of the offended party after desistance

Even after desistance, the offended party may still be subpoenaed, required to testify, or called by the prosecution or defense depending on the stage and needs of the case.

Signing an affidavit of desistance does not immunize a person from process. It merely states a position. The person may still have to appear.

If the complainant refuses to participate, this may affect the prosecution’s proof, but the witness’s obligation to obey lawful court orders remains.

XIX. What prosecutors usually look for in evaluating desistance

A prudent prosecutor commonly examines:

timing of the desistance;
whether restitution has been made;
existence of corroborating evidence;
seriousness of the offense;
vulnerability of the complainant;
possibility of coercion;
consistency between original and later affidavits;
whether the affidavit admits settlement only, or actually disproves elements of the offense;
public interest in prosecution.

The stronger the independent evidence, the weaker the practical effect of desistance.

The weaker the independent evidence, the more significant the desistance becomes.

XX. Motion to withdraw information vs. motion to dismiss

These are related but different.

Motion to withdraw information

Usually initiated by the prosecution after filing, often after review by higher prosecutorial authorities, on the theory that no probable cause exists or that the wrong charge was filed.

Motion to dismiss

May be sought on various grounds, but in criminal cases the court must ensure the ground is legally sufficient and that the rights of the accused and the interests of the State are protected.

Neither motion is granted simply because the complainant changed his or her mind.

The court must independently evaluate.

XXI. Judicial independence after filing

One of the most important doctrines in Philippine criminal procedure is that once a criminal information is filed, the court acquires control over the case. The prosecutor may recommend, but the judge decides whether dismissal, withdrawal, or continuation is proper.

This prevents two dangers:

the executive branch ending prosecutions without scrutiny;
private parties manipulating criminal proceedings by settlement.

The judge must make an independent assessment of the evidence and legal basis.

XXII. Double jeopardy concerns

After arraignment and once jeopardy attaches, dismissal issues become more delicate.

A dismissal without the accused’s consent, after jeopardy has attached, may bar further prosecution depending on the circumstances. On the other hand, dismissals upon the accused’s motion or with consent may not always have that effect.

This means that in post-filing settlement situations, courts and prosecutors must be careful. A casual dismissal can have lasting constitutional consequences.

So where the prosecution seeks withdrawal after arraignment, the judge must be especially precise.

XXIII. Affidavit of desistance as evidence of compromise, not innocence

A common misconception is that desistance proves innocence. It usually does not.

At most, it may prove:

the parties settled;
the complainant no longer wants to proceed;
there may have been misunderstanding;
the complainant is changing position;
the prosecution’s testimonial support is weakening.

But unless it contains credible, detailed, and independently believable exculpatory facts, it does not by itself establish that no crime occurred.

That is why lawyers often distinguish between:

procedural retreat by the complainant, and
substantive exoneration of the accused.

They are not the same.

XXIV. The practical power of settlement despite its limited legal effect

Although the law says settlement does not automatically extinguish criminal liability, settlement still matters a great deal in practice.

Why?

Because criminal cases are built on evidence, and evidence often depends on human cooperation. Settlement can lead to:

complainant non-participation;
softer testimony;
lost momentum;
prosecutorial reassessment;
reduced willingness to pursue civil claims;
resolution of restitution issues;
more favorable overall posture for the accused.

So settlement may not be legally controlling, but it can be strategically significant.

Still, any settlement intended to produce desistance must be approached carefully. Payments made solely to suppress prosecution can create their own legal and ethical problems, especially where coercion, bribery, obstruction, or witness tampering is involved.

XXV. Can the complainant “forgive” the accused?

Moral forgiveness and legal extinguishment are not the same thing.

A complainant may forgive personally. But legal extinguishment of criminal liability happens only in the ways recognized by law, such as:

service of sentence;
amnesty in proper cases;
absolute pardon in proper cases;
prescription in proper cases;
lawful compromise where expressly allowed;
other statutory grounds.

Private forgiveness alone is generally not one of them for ordinary public offenses.

XXVI. Settlement before barangay: does it end criminal exposure?

Not automatically.

Under barangay justice mechanisms, amicable settlement may be required for certain disputes before court action, and in covered matters it may have procedural significance. But criminal offenses, especially those punishable beyond the barangay system’s limits or those not subject to barangay conciliation, are another matter.

Even where barangay settlement occurs, the criminal aspect may remain prosecutable if the law treats the offense as public and non-compromisable.

Thus, a barangay agreement is not a universal shield against criminal prosecution.

XXVII. Common mistakes by complainants

Complainants often assume:

“I signed an affidavit of desistance, so the case is already over.”
“I got paid, so there is no more criminal liability.”
“I can just stop attending and the court must dismiss.”
“The prosecutor must obey my withdrawal.”
“A notarized settlement automatically erases the case.”

These assumptions are dangerous. They can lead to missed hearings, contempt risks, disappointment, or failed expectations.

A complainant should understand that once the machinery of criminal prosecution is engaged, private control is limited.

XXVIII. Common mistakes by accused persons

Accused persons often assume:

“Once the complainant settles, I am safe.”
“Restitution means the case disappears.”
“The affidavit of desistance is enough to win dismissal.”
“The prosecutor can surely withdraw once the complainant agrees.”
“If the witness recants, acquittal is automatic.”

Not necessarily.

The accused still faces:

independent evidence;
judicial control after filing;
review by higher prosecution offices;
possible continuation of the case despite settlement.

Settlement is helpful, but it is not the same as a legal defense.

XXIX. Best legal framing of an affidavit of desistance

A legally useful affidavit of desistance is usually one that does more than say “I am no longer interested.”

A stronger affidavit may address:

the factual basis for the change of position;
whether the original statement was incomplete, mistaken, or emotional;
circumstances showing voluntariness;
whether there was restitution;
whether there was no force, threat, or intimidation;
clarification of ambiguities in the original complaint;
facts that bear directly on one or more elements of the offense.

Even then, it remains only part of the evidentiary picture.

A weak affidavit is purely conclusory. A strong affidavit is factual, detailed, and internally coherent. Still, strength does not guarantee dismissal.

XXX. Ethical and legal dangers in obtaining desistance

Trying to obtain an affidavit of desistance through pressure or improper inducement is risky.

Potential problems include:

coercion;
witness intimidation;
obstruction of justice concerns;
ethical violations by counsel or intermediaries;
later repudiation of the affidavit;
loss of credibility before the prosecutor or court.

A prosecutor who senses intimidation may disregard the affidavit altogether and may become more determined to pursue the case.

So any genuine settlement must be lawful, voluntary, and carefully documented.

XXXI. Special note on violence against women, children, and vulnerable complainants

In cases involving abuse, coercive control, exploitation, or victim vulnerability, desistance is particularly sensitive. Public policy strongly recognizes that victims may withdraw because of fear, dependence, shame, or manipulation.

For that reason, prosecutors and courts are often especially cautious about giving dispositive weight to desistance in such cases.

The more serious the power imbalance, the less persuasive a mere affidavit of withdrawal tends to be.

XXXII. Can the prosecutor continue even if the complainant refuses to testify?

Yes, if the prosecutor believes there is still enough admissible evidence.

But in many cases, the prosecution may become much harder. The result is case-specific.

The refusal of a key witness does not equal automatic dismissal. It creates an evidentiary challenge, not a jurisdictional collapse.

XXXIII. Can the court convict despite an affidavit of desistance?

Yes.

If the prosecution proves guilt beyond reasonable doubt through credible and admissible evidence, the court may convict despite the complainant’s desistance or recantation.

Conversely, the court may acquit even without a desistance affidavit if the evidence is weak.

The controlling standard at trial is proof beyond reasonable doubt, not the complainant’s current preference.

XXXIV. The doctrinal summary

The governing principles may be summarized this way:

A criminal offense is generally a public wrong against the State.
Therefore, the private complainant cannot ordinarily extinguish criminal liability by settlement alone.
An affidavit of desistance does not automatically dismiss the complaint or case.
Desistance is viewed with caution because recantations are easy to obtain and often unreliable.
Before filing in court, the prosecutor may consider desistance but is guided by probable cause, not by private preference.
After filing, dismissal or withdrawal requires judicial approval and independent court evaluation.
Settlement may extinguish or satisfy civil liability without extinguishing criminal liability.
Only where the law expressly allows compromise, pardon, or other extinguishing effect does private settlement control the criminal aspect.
The practical value of desistance often lies in its effect on evidence, not in any automatic legal extinguishment.
The stronger the independent evidence, the less important desistance becomes.

XXXV. Bottom line in Philippine law

In the Philippines, an affidavit of desistance is usually not a death certificate for a criminal case. It is only one circumstance for the prosecutor or the court to evaluate.

The real legal questions are:

Is the offense one that the law allows to be compromised?
Is there still probable cause despite the desistance?
If the case is already in court, is dismissal legally justified and approved by the judge?
Does the affidavit merely show settlement, or does it actually negate the elements of the offense?
Is there enough admissible evidence to proceed without the complainant’s active support?

The safest general statement is this:

Private settlement may settle the civil aspect and may influence the criminal process, but it does not ordinarily control the criminal action. The prosecutor retains discretion to proceed, and once the case is filed, the court has the final say on dismissal within the bounds of law.

XXXVI. Final practical takeaway

For complainants, desistance is not a guarantee that the State will stop.

For respondents or accused persons, settlement is not a guarantee that prosecution is over.

For prosecutors, desistance is a factor, not a substitute for legal judgment.

For courts, private compromise cannot displace the public character of criminal justice.

That is the core Philippine rule on criminal case settlement, affidavit of desistance, and prosecutorial discretion.