In Philippine jurisprudence, an Affidavit of Desistance is a sworn statement where a complainant manifests that they are no longer interested in pursuing a criminal case against the accused. While often used as a tool for settlement, its effect—especially when there are multiple complainants—is frequently misunderstood.
Under the "totality of circumstances" rule applied by Philippine courts, the desistance of one person does not automatically result in the liberation of the accused from the entire case.
1. The General Rule on Desistance
The Supreme Court has consistently held that Affidavits of Desistance are viewed with disfavor. This is because:
- Public Interest: A crime is an offense against the State, not just the individual. Once a criminal complaint is filed in court, the State takes over as the real party in interest.
- Suspicion of Coercion: Courts often suspect that such documents are obtained through intimidation, monetary settlement, or exhaustion rather than a genuine realization of the accused's innocence.
2. Effect when One of Multiple Complainants Desists
When there are multiple complainants (e.g., several victims of a single fraudulent scheme or multiple heirs in a homicide case), the desistance of one does not bind the others.
Individual vs. Collective Rights
- Personal Nature: The right to waive the pursuit of civil indemnity or to forgive an accused is personal. One complainant cannot waive the rights of their co-complainants.
- Continuation of Prosecution: If Complainant A desists but Complainants B and C wish to proceed, the prosecution will continue. The testimony of the remaining complainants may still be sufficient to secure a conviction.
Impact on Evidence
The primary effect of one complainant desisting is the loss of that specific witness's testimony. If the prosecution’s case relies heavily on the unique testimony of the desisting party, the case may be weakened, but it is not legally terminated if other evidence exists.
3. Public vs. Private Crimes
The effect of desistance varies significantly depending on the nature of the crime:
| Type of Crime | Effect of Desistance |
|---|---|
| Public Crimes (e.g., Murder, Theft, Estafa) | Does not stop the case. The State remains the plaintiff. The desistance is merely a ground for the court to re-examine the evidence. |
| Private Crimes (e.g., Concubinage, Adultery, Slander) | Under Article 344 of the Revised Penal Code, the pardon or desistance of the offended party can, in specific circumstances, lead to the dismissal of the case. |
4. The "Single Victim" Scenario with Multiple Heirs
In cases involving death (Homicide or Murder), where the "complainants" are the heirs of the deceased:
- If one heir (e.g., one sibling) signs a desistance but another sibling refuses, the criminal case must proceed.
- The desisting heir only waives their individual share of the civil liability (damages), but they cannot extinguish the criminal liability of the accused.
5. When Desistance Leads to Dismissal
While desistance alone is not a ground for dismissal, it can lead to that result in two specific instances:
- Failure to Prosecute: If the desisting complainant was the sole eyewitness and their refusal to testify leaves the prosecution with zero evidence, the case may be dismissed for lack of evidence (not because of the affidavit itself, but because of the resulting evidentiary vacuum).
- Affidavit as a Correction of Fact: If the desistance states that the accused was wrongly identified or that the incident never happened, it may create reasonable doubt, prompting the judge to dismiss the case.
6. Summary of Legal Consequences
- For the Accused: It is not a "get out of jail free" card if other complainants remain active.
- For the Prosecution: The Public Prosecutor has the discretion to continue the case as long as there is other evidence to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt.
- For the Court: The court will generally ignore the desistance if it is filed after the prosecution has already rested its case or if the evidence of guilt is already strong.
Key Jurisprudence: In People vs. Romero, the Court emphasized that "the State has a soul to save and a canon to uphold," implying that the private whims of a complainant—or even one of many—cannot easily frustrate the wheels of justice.