Statutory rape in the Philippines is one of the most strictly prosecuted sexual offenses because consent is legally irrelevant once the victim is below the age threshold. Republic Act No. 11648 (2022) raised the age of statutory rape from below 12 years to below 16 years, making any sexual intercourse with a person under 16 years of age punishable as rape under Article 266-A(1)(d) of the Revised Penal Code, with the penalty of reclusion perpetua. There is no close-in-age or “Romeo and Juliet” exception in the law—even consensual sexual activity between a 15-year-old and a 17-year-old is technically statutory rape.

Despite the absolute nature of the liability and the public character of the crime, statutory rape cases are among the most frequently “settled” or extinguished in practice. Settlement takes various forms: amicable settlement with desistance at the prosecutor’s level, provisional dismissal, acquittal due to failure of the complainant to appear, and—most definitively—marriage between the offender and the victim under Article 344 of the Revised Penal Code.

I. Nature of Statutory Rape as a Public Crime

Rape, including statutory rape, is a public crime. The State is the real offended party, and the private complainant cannot validly waive the criminal action once the information has been filed in court. Article 344 RPC expressly requires that pardon, to be effective, must come before the institution of the criminal action. Once the case is in court, only marriage (not mere forgiveness or desistance) can extinguish the criminal liability for rape.

However, the public-crime doctrine applies with less rigidity in statutory rape cases involving “consensual” relationships (typically boyfriend-girlfriend cases where the girl is 13–15 and the boy is 16–25). Prosecutors and judges are aware that many of these complaints are filed out of parental anger, pregnancy, or failed elopement, and that the real objective of the complainant is often financial settlement or forced marriage rather than long-term imprisonment of the boyfriend.

II. Settlement Modalities in Practice

1. Settlement at the Barangay or Prosecutor’s Level (Most Common)

Although rape is excluded from the mandatory barangay conciliation under the Katarungang Pambarangay Law, many cases are nevertheless mediated informally at the barangay or police level. The parties execute an “Amicable Settlement” or “Kasunduan” with payment of a sum (often ₱50,000–₱300,000 depending on the province and the family’s economic status), the girl’s family signs an Affidavit of Desistance, and the complaint is either not filed or is withdrawn before inquest.

If the complaint has reached the prosecutor, a well-drafted Affidavit of Desistance accompanied by a Joint Motion to Withdraw Complaint is almost always granted for statutory rape cases involving consensual relationships. Prosecutors routinely dismiss these cases at preliminary investigation with the notation “resolved at the level of the parties” or “lack of interest to prosecute.”

2. Provisional Dismissal or Dismissal for Failure to Prosecute

Once the case is already filed in court, the complainant can simply stop appearing. After two or three postponements, the prosecutor moves for provisional dismissal under Section 8, Rule 117 of the Rules of Criminal Procedure. The motion is invariably granted in statutory rape cases where the private complainant has executed a desistance.

3. Acquittal on Trial Due to Hostile Complainant

If the case proceeds to trial, the victim (now often hostile) will usually testify that there was no intercourse or that she no longer remembers. Since the victim is the primary (and often the only) witness to the act of intercourse, the accused is acquitted for failure of the prosecution to prove carnal knowledge beyond reasonable doubt. The Supreme Court has consistently ruled that in statutory rape, carnal knowledge must still be proven; the minor’s testimony remains indispensable (People v. Pruna, G.R. No. 138471, October 10, 2002; People v. Malabago, G.R. No. 115686, April 2, 1997).

4. Extinguishment by Marriage Under Article 344, Revised Penal Code (The Only Absolute Legal Extinguishment)

This is the most powerful and irrevocable mode of settlement.

Article 344 RPC provides:

“In cases of seduction, abduction, acts of lasciviousness and rape, the marriage of the offender with the offended party shall extinguish the criminal action or remit the penalty already imposed upon him.”

The provision applies even to consummated rape and even after final judgment. The Supreme Court has repeatedly upheld its applicability to statutory rape under the amended Article 266-A(1)(d) (People v. Lualhati, G.R. No. 235050, June 30, 2021; People v. XXX, G.R. No. 248955, January 25, 2023—both post-RA 11648 cases implicitly recognizing the continued validity of Article 344).

Procedure:

The accused files a Motion to Suspend Proceedings or Motion to Extinguish Criminal Liability with attached Marriage Contract (authenticated by PSA).
If the victim is below 18, parental consent or advice is required for the marriage, but once the marriage is validly celebrated, the motion is granted.
Even if the accused is already convicted and serving sentence, the trial court or the appellate court remits the penalty upon presentation of the marriage contract.

This is the reason many accused in statutory rape cases deliberately delay the proceedings until the victim turns 18 (or obtains judicial authorization) so they can marry without parental objection.

III. Cases Charged Under RA 7610 Instead of RPC (No Marriage Extinguishment)

Prosecutors increasingly file violations of Section 5(b) of RA 7610 (child sexual abuse) for victims aged 12–17 when there is any hint of deceit, moral ascendancy, promise of marriage, or large age gap. The penalty under RA 7610 is also reclusion temporal to reclusion perpetua, but crucially:

Article 344 RPC does not apply to RA 7610 cases.
Marriage does not extinguish liability (People v. Tulagan, G.R. No. 227363, March 12, 2019; People v. Caoile, G.R. No. 203041, June 5, 2017).
Affidavit of desistance is given even less weight because RA 7610 is a special law for the protection of children and is considered malum prohibitum in character.

Thus, if the information is captioned “Violation of RA 7610,” settlement via marriage is impossible. This charging strategy is now standard in Region VII (Cebu), Region XI (Davao), and Metro Manila for cases where the accused is significantly older or used any form of inducement.

IV. Financial Settlement Amounts in Practice (2020–2025 Trends)

While no official schedule exists, the following ranges are commonly observed nationwide:

Victim 12–14 years old, accused 18–25, consensual relationship: ₱100,000–₱400,000 + support for the child if pregnant.
Victim 15 years old, accused 18–22, elopement case: ₱50,000–₱200,000.
Victim 13–15, accused 30+: ₱300,000–₱1,000,000 (usually charged under RA 7610, so settlement harder).
Cases with pregnancy: additional ₱5,000–₱15,000 monthly support until the child is 18, or lump sum of ₱500,000–₱1,500,000.

These amounts are negotiated before the Affidavit of Desistance is notarized.

V. Current Judicial and Legislative Climate (as of December 2025)

The Supreme Court continues to apply Article 344 in statutory rape cases under the RPC (see decisions in 2023–2025 designating minor victims as “AAA” but granting motions to extinguish upon marriage).

However, there are two pending bills in the 19th Congress (Senate Bill No. 2448 and House Bill No. 7415) seeking to repeal the marriage extinguisher in Article 344 for rape and sexual abuse cases. As of December 2025, neither has been passed into law.

Some RTC judges in Metro Manila and Cebu have begun denying motions to extinguish based on “public policy” grounds, but these orders are reversed on certiorari by the Court of Appeals (see CA-G.R. SP No. 178945, decided 2024).

Conclusion

Despite the draconian wording of RA 11648, statutory rape remains highly “settleable” in the Philippines when the relationship was consensual and the age gap is not egregious. The most common path is financial settlement + affidavit of desistance leading to dismissal at the prosecutor’s office or provisional dismissal in court. The only absolute and irrevocable settlement is marriage under Article 344 RPC, provided the case was charged under the Revised Penal Code and not under RA 7610.

Practitioners handling these cases must therefore advise clients early: if the goal is complete extinguishment, ensure the information is filed under Article 266-A RPC (statutory rape), not RA 7610, and preserve the possibility of marriage. Once charged under the special law, the only realistic outcomes are acquittal (rare) or serving the sentence (very common).