Philippine Legal Context

I. Introduction

An affidavit of desistance is a sworn statement executed by a complainant or offended party declaring that he or she no longer wishes to pursue a criminal complaint, no longer has interest in prosecuting the accused, or is withdrawing earlier accusations. In Philippine criminal practice, it is common in disputes that begin as personal conflicts, family quarrels, business disagreements, altercations, neighborhood disputes, or cases where settlement has been reached.

However, in criminal law, the effect of desistance is often misunderstood. A complainant may think that once an affidavit of desistance is signed, the criminal case automatically ends. That is not the rule.

The controlling principle is this: a criminal case is prosecuted in the name of the People of the Philippines, not merely in the name of the private complainant. Once the State has taken cognizance of the offense, the private complainant’s change of heart does not necessarily bind the prosecutor or the court.

This becomes more complex when only some complainants execute affidavits of desistance while others do not. In that situation, the case generally remains alive as to the non-desisting complainants, and may also continue even as to the desisting complainants if the prosecution still has sufficient evidence.

II. Nature of an Affidavit of Desistance

An affidavit of desistance is not a magic document that extinguishes criminal liability. It is, at most, an expression of the complainant’s present position.

It may state, among others, that:

the complainant is no longer interested in pursuing the case;
the complainant has forgiven the accused;
the parties have settled their dispute;
the complainant does not wish to testify;
the complainant is withdrawing the complaint;
the complainant believes the case arose from misunderstanding;
the complainant was mistaken in making the accusation; or
the complainant is waiving the civil aspect of the case.

The legal effect depends on the wording, timing, stage of proceedings, nature of the offense, evidence available, and whether the desistance is voluntary, credible, and consistent with the record.

III. Basic Rule: Desistance Does Not Automatically Dismiss a Criminal Case

In the Philippines, crimes are offenses against the State. Even if there is a private offended party, the criminal action is brought in the name of the People.

Thus, once a criminal action has been instituted, the offended party cannot, by mere affidavit, compel dismissal. The prosecutor remains the representative of the State, and the court ultimately determines whether dismissal is proper.

The usual judicial attitude toward affidavits of desistance is cautious. Courts have repeatedly treated them with suspicion because they may be executed due to pressure, intimidation, compromise, family influence, monetary settlement, fear, fatigue, or misunderstanding of legal consequences.

The more important question is not whether the complainant has desisted, but whether the prosecution still has enough evidence to prove the charge.

IV. Effect When Only Some Complainants Execute Affidavits of Desistance

When there are several complainants and only some execute affidavits of desistance, the effect is generally limited.

1. The case may proceed as to the non-desisting complainants

If other complainants continue to pursue the case, their complaints, testimonies, and evidence remain available. The desistance of some complainants does not erase the claims of others.

For example, if five complainants charge an accused with estafa arising from related transactions, and two execute affidavits of desistance, the case may still proceed based on the complaints of the remaining three.

2. The case may still proceed even as to the desisting complainants

Desistance by a complainant does not necessarily remove that complainant from the case. If the prosecution has documentary evidence, independent witnesses, admissions, CCTV footage, medical records, forensic evidence, or other proof, the State may continue prosecution despite desistance.

The complainant may become an unwilling or hostile witness, but the prosecutor may still present available evidence.

3. The affidavit may affect the strength of the prosecution’s evidence

Although not automatically controlling, an affidavit of desistance may weaken the prosecution if the desisting complainant is the sole material witness and there is no other competent evidence.

This is especially significant where the case depends entirely on the complainant’s testimony, such as certain cases involving threats, oral defamation, unjust vexation, slight physical injuries, or fact-specific accusations with no documentary or independent corroboration.

4. The affidavit may affect the civil aspect

If the desisting complainant expressly waives the civil claim or acknowledges settlement, that may affect the civil liability owed to that complainant. But the waiver of civil liability does not necessarily affect the criminal liability of the accused.

5. It does not prejudice the rights of other complainants

One complainant cannot waive another complainant’s rights. If several persons were separately injured or defrauded, the desistance of one does not extinguish the claims of the others.

V. Stage of Proceedings Matters

The effect of desistance depends heavily on when it is submitted.

A. Before Preliminary Investigation

If the complaint has not yet been filed with the prosecutor, an affidavit of desistance may prevent the filing of the complaint altogether, especially if the complainant decides not to proceed.

However, this is not absolute. For public offenses, authorities may still proceed if there is independent evidence of a crime.

B. During Preliminary Investigation

At the preliminary investigation stage, the prosecutor determines whether there is probable cause to charge the respondent in court.

An affidavit of desistance may be considered by the prosecutor as part of the evidence. It may support dismissal if it shows that the accusation is doubtful, unsupported, settled in a way that affects credibility, or no longer backed by the complainant.

But the prosecutor is not bound by it. If probable cause exists from other evidence, the prosecutor may still file the Information in court.

Where only some complainants desist, the prosecutor may:

dismiss the complaint as to the desisting complainants if their claims are unsupported;
proceed as to the non-desisting complainants;
file charges covering all complainants if evidence remains sufficient;
reduce the charge;
separate charges by complainant, transaction, or count; or
treat the desistance as affecting only civil settlement, not criminal liability.

C. After the Information Is Filed in Court

Once the Information is filed, the case is under the jurisdiction of the court. At that point, even the prosecutor cannot dismiss the case on his or her own. The prosecutor may move to dismiss, but the court must approve.

An affidavit of desistance filed after the case reaches court is merely evidence or a basis for a motion. It does not automatically terminate the proceedings.

The court may deny dismissal if it finds that:

the offense is public in nature;
the evidence on record is sufficient;
the affidavit appears suspicious;
the affidavit is inconsistent with prior sworn statements;
other complainants or witnesses remain willing to testify;
the case involves public interest;
the alleged crime is serious;
the affidavit does not clearly recant the facts charged; or
dismissal would defeat justice.

D. During Trial

During trial, desistance is often treated as a matter affecting credibility. If the complainant testifies contrary to the original complaint, the prosecution may confront the complainant with prior statements.

A complainant who recants may be declared a hostile or adverse witness, depending on the circumstances. Prior statements may be used for impeachment, and other evidence may still be presented.

If the desisting complainant refuses to testify, the prosecution may rely on other witnesses and evidence. If no other evidence exists, the prosecution may fail.

E. After Conviction

An affidavit of desistance executed after conviction has even less effect. Once judgment has been rendered, the issue is no longer merely whether the complainant wishes to proceed, but whether the conviction is supported by evidence beyond reasonable doubt.

Post-conviction desistance may be considered in limited situations, but it generally does not erase a valid conviction.

VI. Difference Between Desistance and Recantation

Desistance and recantation are related but different.

Desistance

The complainant says he or she no longer wants to proceed.

Example: “I am no longer interested in pursuing this case because we have settled.”

Recantation

The complainant withdraws or contradicts the accusation itself.

Example: “My earlier statement was false. The accused did not commit the act.”

Recantation is potentially more serious than simple desistance because it attacks the factual basis of the charge. Still, courts do not automatically accept recantation. Recantations are often viewed with caution because they may be motivated by pressure, compromise, family considerations, or fear.

A recantation must be credible, voluntary, specific, and consistent with the rest of the evidence before it can significantly affect the case.

VII. Public Crimes vs. Private Offenses

The effect of desistance also depends on the type of offense.

A. Public Crimes

Most crimes are public offenses. These include, among others:

murder;
homicide;
physical injuries;
robbery;
theft;
estafa;
falsification;
qualified theft;
illegal drugs offenses;
direct assault;
grave threats;
grave coercion;
cybercrime offenses;
violation of special penal laws;
corruption-related offenses;
firearms offenses; and
offenses involving public order or public interest.

In public crimes, the offended party’s desistance does not extinguish criminal liability. The case may proceed if the State has evidence.

B. Offenses Requiring a Complaint by the Offended Party

Some offenses historically required a complaint from the offended party or certain relatives before prosecution could proceed. Examples include adultery, concubinage, and certain offenses against chastity under the Revised Penal Code.

For these offenses, the initial complaint requirement is jurisdictional or procedural in nature. But once properly initiated, later desistance does not necessarily erase the case unless the law specifically provides an effect such as pardon, forgiveness, or marriage where applicable under the governing rules.

Care must be taken because some older doctrines have been modified by later statutes, especially with respect to rape, which is now treated as a public crime.

VIII. Desistance in VAWC, Child Abuse, Sexual Offenses, and Domestic Cases

In cases involving violence against women and children, child abuse, sexual offenses, and domestic violence, courts and prosecutors are especially cautious with affidavits of desistance.

This is because desistance may be caused by:

economic dependence;
family pressure;
fear of the accused;
reconciliation;
emotional manipulation;
threats;
concern for children;
shame;
community pressure; or
repeated cycle of abuse.

A complainant’s forgiveness or reconciliation does not automatically remove criminal liability. The State may continue prosecution, particularly when the offense involves violence, coercion, sexual abuse, minors, or public interest.

In such cases, prosecutors may rely on medical records, barangay records, police blotters, photographs, social worker reports, psychological evaluations, testimony of relatives, testimony of children, expert testimony, or other corroborative evidence.

IX. Desistance in Estafa, B.P. 22, and Commercial Disputes

Affidavits of desistance frequently appear in estafa and bouncing check cases after payment or settlement.

1. Estafa

Payment or settlement does not automatically extinguish criminal liability for estafa if all elements of the crime were already present. It may, however, affect civil liability, damages, credibility, or the prosecutor’s assessment of probable cause.

If the case is already in court, settlement may support a motion to dismiss, but the court may still refuse if the evidence shows criminal fraud.

2. B.P. 22

In bouncing check cases, payment may affect the complainant’s interest and the civil aspect. Depending on timing and circumstances, payment may also influence prosecutorial discretion or sentencing considerations. Still, the mere filing of an affidavit of desistance does not automatically nullify the criminal action.

3. Multiple Payees or Victims

If only some payees, investors, buyers, or creditors desist, the case may continue as to the others. Settlement with one complainant does not automatically settle all claims.

X. Evidentiary Value of an Affidavit of Desistance

An affidavit of desistance is evidence, but its weight depends on the circumstances.

Courts may examine:

whether the affidavit was voluntarily executed;
whether the complainant understood its contents;
whether the complainant was assisted by counsel;
whether there was consideration or settlement;
whether the affidavit was notarized;
whether it contains a clear withdrawal of accusations or merely a desire not to proceed;
whether it contradicts earlier sworn statements;
whether the contradiction is explained;
whether other evidence supports the charge;
whether the desistance was made before or after trial began;
whether there are signs of intimidation or pressure;
whether public interest is involved; and
whether dismissal would result in injustice.

A bare statement of forgiveness usually has little effect on criminal liability.

XI. Can the Prosecutor Ignore the Affidavit of Desistance?

Yes, if there is sufficient evidence.

The prosecutor’s duty is not merely to follow the complainant’s wishes. The prosecutor represents the People. If the evidence shows probable cause, the prosecutor may proceed despite desistance.

This is especially true when:

the crime is serious;
the evidence is documentary;
there are multiple witnesses;
the offense involves minors or vulnerable persons;
public interest is involved;
there are several complainants and not all have desisted;
the affidavit appears suspicious;
the accused has a pattern of similar acts;
there is physical or forensic evidence; or
desistance appears to be part of a compromise that does not erase criminality.

XII. Can the Court Dismiss the Case Based on Desistance?

Yes, but only if dismissal is justified.

The court may dismiss when desistance, together with the rest of the record, shows that the prosecution can no longer prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt, or that the case lacks basis.

However, the court should not dismiss solely because the complainant has lost interest, especially where the offense is public and the prosecution has evidence.

The judge must exercise independent judgment. The court is not a rubber stamp of the complainant, the accused, or even the prosecutor.

XIII. Desistance by Some Complainants in Multi-Count Cases

In many criminal cases, there are multiple complainants and multiple counts. This matters.

Example

Ten complainants accuse one person of estafa. Each complainant parted with money on different dates and under different transactions. Three execute affidavits of desistance.

Possible effects:

the counts involving the three desisting complainants may be weakened;
the prosecution may still proceed on the seven remaining counts;
documentary evidence may still support the three desisting complainants’ claims;
civil liability as to the three may be considered settled;
the accused may still face criminal liability for all counts if evidence remains sufficient;
the court may allow amendment, withdrawal, or dismissal of some counts, depending on the procedural posture.

The desistance of three complainants does not automatically destroy the entire case.

XIV. Desistance by Some Witnesses vs. Desistance by Complainants

A complainant and a witness are not always the same.

A desisting complainant may also be a witness. But if other witnesses remain, the case may proceed.

Likewise, if a witness executes an affidavit saying he or she no longer wants to testify, that does not necessarily end the case. The prosecution may compel testimony through subpoena, subject to constitutional and evidentiary rules.

XV. Effect on Probable Cause

At the preliminary investigation stage, desistance may affect the finding of probable cause.

Probable cause requires a reasonable belief that a crime has been committed and that the respondent is probably guilty. If the complainant withdraws the accusation and no other evidence remains, probable cause may disappear.

But if the prosecutor can still rely on documents, admissions, independent witnesses, or physical evidence, probable cause may remain.

Where some complainants desist and others continue, probable cause may remain as to the non-desisting complainants and possibly as to the desisting complainants if their earlier statements are supported by other evidence.

XVI. Effect on Proof Beyond Reasonable Doubt

At trial, the issue is no longer probable cause but proof beyond reasonable doubt.

An affidavit of desistance may create reasonable doubt if it destroys the prosecution’s main evidence. But it does not automatically do so.

The court will consider the totality of evidence. If guilt is proven by credible testimony, documents, physical evidence, or circumstances, desistance may not prevent conviction.

XVII. Desistance and Civil Liability

A criminal case has two aspects:

the criminal aspect, involving punishment for the offense; and
the civil aspect, involving restitution, reparation, or damages.

An affidavit of desistance may affect the civil aspect if it clearly states that the complainant has been paid, compensated, or has waived claims.

But waiver of civil liability does not necessarily waive criminal liability.

A complainant may say: “I have been fully paid and no longer claim damages.”

That may help settle the civil aspect. But the State may still prosecute the accused for the criminal offense.

XVIII. Desistance and Compromise Agreement

In criminal cases, parties often execute a compromise agreement together with an affidavit of desistance.

Compromise is generally allowed as to the civil liability arising from the offense. But criminal liability cannot usually be compromised away.

There are exceptions or special situations, such as offenses where compromise, pardon, or forgiveness has a legal effect under specific laws. But for ordinary public crimes, settlement does not erase the offense.

The public policy reason is clear: allowing criminal cases to be bought off would encourage intimidation, private bargaining, and abuse of the criminal justice system.

XIX. Desistance and the Right of the Accused

The accused may use the affidavit of desistance to support:

a counter-affidavit during preliminary investigation;
a motion for reconsideration of a prosecutor’s resolution;
a petition for review before the Department of Justice, where applicable;
a motion to dismiss;
a demurrer to evidence;
cross-examination of the complainant;
impeachment of credibility;
settlement of the civil aspect;
plea bargaining considerations, where allowed;
mitigation during sentencing, where relevant.

But the accused cannot demand automatic dismissal solely on the basis of desistance.

XX. Desistance and Provisional Dismissal

Desistance should not be confused with provisional dismissal.

A provisional dismissal under the Rules of Criminal Procedure requires compliance with specific requirements, including the express consent of the accused and notice to the offended party. It also has consequences on revival of the case depending on the penalty and time periods involved.

An affidavit of desistance may be one factual reason behind a motion for provisional dismissal, but it is not the same as provisional dismissal itself.

XXI. Desistance and Double Jeopardy

If a case is dismissed based on desistance, double jeopardy may or may not attach depending on the circumstances.

Double jeopardy generally requires:

a valid complaint or information;
jurisdiction by a competent court;
arraignment of the accused;
a valid plea; and
dismissal, acquittal, conviction, or termination without the accused’s express consent.

If the accused moves for dismissal based on the affidavit of desistance, the dismissal may be considered with the accused’s consent, which may affect a later claim of double jeopardy.

This is why procedural posture is important. Dismissal before arraignment is different from dismissal after arraignment. Dismissal with the accused’s consent is different from dismissal over the accused’s objection.

XXII. Desistance by Some Complainants and Conspiracy Cases

In conspiracy cases, the desistance of some complainants does not necessarily affect the liability of all accused.

If the evidence shows that accused persons acted together in committing the offense, the State may continue prosecution even if some complainants settle or withdraw.

The focus remains on whether the elements of the crime and the participation of the accused can be proven.

XXIII. Desistance in Cases Involving Several Accused

If there are several accused and the complainant desists only as to some of them, the effect is limited.

A complainant may state that he or she is no longer pursuing the case against Accused A but not against Accused B. The court and prosecutor must examine whether the distinction is supported by facts.

A complainant cannot selectively erase criminal liability if evidence shows participation by all accused. Conversely, if the affidavit clarifies that certain accused were wrongly included, it may help those accused if the clarification is credible.

XXIV. Desistance and Barangay Settlement

Some disputes pass through barangay conciliation before reaching the prosecutor or court.

A barangay settlement may resolve civil or personal aspects of a dispute, but it does not automatically bar prosecution of offenses that are not subject to amicable settlement or where the law allows prosecution despite settlement.

If the criminal case involves an offense punishable beyond the barangay’s authority or involves public interest, barangay settlement and desistance do not necessarily prevent prosecution.

XXV. Practical Effects of Desistance by Some Complainants

In practice, desistance by some complainants may produce one or more of the following results:

the prosecutor may dismiss the complaint as to those complainants;
the prosecutor may proceed only as to the remaining complainants;
the prosecutor may still include all complainants if evidence supports the charge;
the prosecutor may recommend a lesser offense;
the court may deny dismissal;
the court may dismiss some counts but not others;
the civil aspect may be considered settled as to the desisting complainants;
the accused may use the affidavit to impeach credibility;
the prosecution may treat the desisting complainant as hostile;
the case may be weakened but not extinguished;
plea bargaining or settlement discussions may be affected;
the affidavit may be disregarded if suspicious or unsupported.

XXVI. When Desistance Is More Likely to Matter

An affidavit of desistance is more likely to affect the case when:

the offense is minor;
the complainant is the only witness;
there is no documentary evidence;
there is no physical evidence;
the affidavit clearly recants the accusation;
the recantation is credible and detailed;
the case is still at preliminary investigation;
the prosecutor has not yet filed Information;
the civil aspect has been fully settled;
the non-desisting evidence is weak;
there is no public interest beyond the private dispute.

XXVII. When Desistance Is Less Likely to Matter

Desistance is less likely to cause dismissal when:

the offense is serious;
the crime involves violence;
the victim is a minor;
the case involves domestic abuse;
the case involves sexual abuse;
the offense affects public order;
public funds or public office are involved;
the offense is mala prohibita under a special law;
there is strong documentary evidence;
other complainants remain;
independent witnesses exist;
the accused admitted material facts;
the affidavit is vague;
the affidavit appears coerced;
the affidavit merely says the complainant is no longer interested;
the case is already in trial;
the prosecution has already presented strong evidence.

XXVIII. Common Misconceptions

Misconception 1: “If the complainant withdraws, the case is automatically dismissed.”

Incorrect. The State may continue the case.

Misconception 2: “Settlement always ends a criminal case.”

Incorrect. Settlement may affect civil liability but not necessarily criminal liability.

Misconception 3: “The prosecutor must follow the complainant.”

Incorrect. The prosecutor represents the People.

Misconception 4: “If some complainants desist, the whole case collapses.”

Incorrect. The case may continue as to other complainants or based on other evidence.

Misconception 5: “A notarized affidavit of desistance is conclusive.”

Incorrect. Notarization affects form, not necessarily truth or legal effect.

Misconception 6: “The judge must dismiss once the prosecutor agrees.”

Incorrect. Once in court, dismissal requires judicial approval.

XXIX. Sample Legal Analysis

Suppose there are four complainants in a criminal case for estafa. Two submit affidavits of desistance stating that they have been paid and no longer wish to proceed. The other two complainants refuse to settle and remain willing to testify.

The likely legal effects are:

the case does not automatically end;
the prosecution may continue based on the two remaining complainants;
the affidavits may affect the civil claims of the two desisting complainants;
if the facts involve separate transactions, the prosecutor or court may treat the claims separately;
if the evidence of fraud is documentary and strong, the prosecution may still proceed even as to the desisting complainants;
if the desisting complainants are the only evidence for their specific counts, those counts may be vulnerable to dismissal;
the accused may use the affidavits to argue lack of probable cause, reasonable doubt, or settlement of civil liability;
the final decision remains with the prosecutor or court, depending on the stage of the case.

XXX. Drafting Considerations for an Affidavit of Desistance

An affidavit of desistance should be carefully drafted because careless wording may create unintended consequences.

It should clarify whether the complainant is:

merely forgiving the accused;
withdrawing interest in prosecution;
acknowledging full payment;
waiving civil liability;
recanting earlier allegations;
saying the case arose from misunderstanding;
confirming that the affidavit is voluntary;
confirming absence of force, intimidation, or undue influence;
limiting the desistance to certain accused;
limiting the desistance to certain claims;
preserving claims against other accused or other complainants.

A vague affidavit may have limited legal value.

XXXI. Risks in Executing an Affidavit of Desistance

A complainant should understand that execution of an affidavit of desistance may have consequences.

Possible risks include:

weakening the criminal case;
affecting the complainant’s credibility;
limiting civil recovery;
being cross-examined on inconsistency;
exposure to questions about settlement;
possible liability if the affidavit falsely states facts;
possible perjury issues if the complainant contradicts earlier sworn statements without explanation;
pressure from other complainants or accused;
loss of leverage in settlement;
inability to easily revive the complaint if the case is dismissed.

The accused also faces risks if relying solely on desistance, because the case may still proceed.

XXXII. Desistance and Perjury Concerns

If a complainant previously gave a sworn statement accusing a person of a crime, and later executes another sworn statement saying the accusation was false, this creates a serious inconsistency.

Not every inconsistency is perjury. A person may have been mistaken, confused, pressured, or may have clarified incomplete facts. But if one sworn statement is deliberately false on a material matter, perjury concerns may arise.

Therefore, recanting affidavits must be drafted with care and must truthfully explain the reason for the change.

XXXIII. Role of the Private Prosecutor

In criminal cases, the private prosecutor acts under the direction and control of the public prosecutor. If the private complainant desists, the private prosecutor’s participation may be affected, especially as to the civil aspect.

But the public prosecutor may still proceed in the interest of the State.

Where some complainants desist and others do not, the private prosecutor may continue representing the non-desisting complainants, subject to the authority of the public prosecutor and the court.

XXXIV. Role of the Court

The court must ensure that criminal proceedings are not manipulated by private arrangements. It must balance:

the rights of the accused;
the interests of the offended party;
the authority of the prosecutor;
the evidence on record;
the public interest;
the integrity of the justice system.

The court may inquire into the voluntariness and credibility of the affidavit. It may require the affiant to testify. It may deny dismissal if the circumstances suggest that desistance is unreliable.

XXXV. Special Concern: Some Complainants Desist Due to Settlement, Others Do Not

This situation is common in investment, lending, syndicated schemes, business disputes, group complaints, and property cases.

A settlement with some complainants should be clearly documented. It should specify:

who is covered;
what amount was paid;
what claims are settled;
whether the settlement covers civil liability only;
whether the complainant is waiving damages;
whether other complainants are excluded;
whether there is any admission of liability;
whether the accused reserves defenses;
whether the affidavit is limited to the settling complainant.

The accused should not assume that paying some complainants will terminate the entire criminal case.

XXXVI. Can Desistance Be Used to Seek Reinvestigation?

Yes. If an affidavit of desistance is executed after the filing of a complaint but before or shortly after the filing of the Information, the accused may seek reconsideration or reinvestigation, depending on procedural availability.

The argument would be that the affidavit materially affects probable cause.

However, reinvestigation is discretionary and does not guarantee dismissal.

XXXVII. Can Desistance Support a Demurrer to Evidence?

Yes, in some cases.

After the prosecution rests, the accused may file a demurrer to evidence if the prosecution’s evidence is insufficient. If a complainant’s desistance or recantation severely undermines the evidence, it may support the demurrer.

But if the prosecution presented sufficient independent evidence, the demurrer may still be denied.

XXXVIII. Can a Desisting Complainant Be Compelled to Testify?

Generally, a witness may be subpoenaed if testimony is material. A complainant cannot simply defeat the criminal process by refusing to appear.

However, constitutional rights, privileges, protection against self-incrimination, and special rules for vulnerable witnesses may apply depending on the case.

A complainant who refuses to testify despite subpoena may face legal consequences, but courts are careful in sensitive cases.

XXXIX. Policy Reasons Behind the Rule

The rule that desistance does not automatically dismiss criminal cases is grounded on public policy.

If criminal cases could be ended by private desistance alone:

wealthy accused persons could buy their way out;
victims could be pressured into withdrawal;
domestic abuse victims could be silenced;
public crimes would become private bargaining chips;
prosecution would become unstable;
the justice system would lose credibility;
offenders could escape liability through intimidation.

Thus, the law protects both public interest and vulnerable complainants by requiring prosecutorial and judicial scrutiny.

XL. Practical Guidance for Accused Persons

An accused who receives an affidavit of desistance from some complainants should not assume that the case is over.

Practical steps include:

determine the exact stage of the case;
examine whether Information has already been filed;
check whether all complainants or only some have desisted;
determine whether the affidavit covers civil liability only or also factual allegations;
assess remaining evidence;
file the proper motion or pleading;
avoid pressuring complainants;
document settlement lawfully;
ensure that any affidavit is voluntary;
seek dismissal only through proper procedure.

XLI. Practical Guidance for Complainants

A complainant considering desistance should understand that:

the case may continue despite the affidavit;
the prosecutor or court may still require appearance;
the affidavit may affect credibility;
waiver of civil claims may be binding;
false statements may have consequences;
desistance by one complainant does not bind others;
pressure or intimidation should be reported;
settlement should be clearly documented;
the affidavit should not be signed unless fully understood.

XLII. Practical Guidance for Prosecutors

When faced with affidavits of desistance by some complainants, prosecutors should examine:

whether the desistance is voluntary;
whether the complainants were paid or pressured;
whether non-desisting complainants remain;
whether independent evidence exists;
whether the offense is serious or public in nature;
whether vulnerable victims are involved;
whether the affidavit is a true recantation or mere forgiveness;
whether the criminal and civil aspects are being confused;
whether probable cause remains;
whether dismissal would serve justice.

XLIII. Practical Guidance for Courts

Courts should not automatically grant dismissal based on affidavits of desistance. They should determine whether the prosecution’s evidence has truly collapsed or whether the public interest requires continuation.

If only some complainants have desisted, courts should identify whether the case involves:

separate offenses;
separate counts;
separate civil claims;
common evidence;
conspiracy;
continuing offense;
public interest;
remaining complainants willing to proceed.

The court may dismiss some aspects while allowing others to continue, depending on the structure of the charges and evidence.

XLIV. Key Doctrinal Points

The principal doctrines may be summarized as follows:

A criminal case is an offense against the State.
The complainant’s desistance does not automatically dismiss the case.
The prosecutor may proceed if evidence remains sufficient.
Once the case is filed in court, only the court may dismiss it.
Affidavits of desistance are viewed with caution.
Settlement affects civil liability more directly than criminal liability.
Recantation is not automatically believed.
Desistance by some complainants does not bind non-desisting complainants.
Desistance by one offended party does not extinguish the rights of others.
The effect of desistance depends on the stage of proceedings, nature of the offense, and strength of evidence.
Public interest may override private compromise.
The court must independently evaluate whether dismissal is proper.

XLV. Conclusion

In Philippine criminal procedure, an affidavit of desistance by some complainants is legally relevant but not controlling. It may weaken the case, affect probable cause, support settlement of civil liability, or justify dismissal of certain counts in proper circumstances. But it does not automatically terminate the criminal action.

Where only some complainants desist, the criminal case may proceed as to the others. It may also proceed even as to the desisting complainants if independent evidence supports the charge. The prosecutor and the court are not bound by private withdrawal, especially in public crimes, serious offenses, cases involving vulnerable victims, or cases supported by strong evidence.

The central inquiry is always whether the State can still prove the elements of the offense according to the required standard: probable cause at the preliminary investigation stage, and proof beyond reasonable doubt at trial.

Thus, the affidavit of desistance is not the end of the case. It is one piece of evidence, to be weighed carefully against the entire record, the rights of the accused, the interests of the complainants, and the public interest in the enforcement of criminal law.

This is a general legal article, not a substitute for advice on a specific case. The exact effect can change depending on the offense charged, the wording of the affidavits, and whether the case is still with the prosecutor or already in court.