I. Introduction

In the Philippines, estafa is a criminal offense punishable under the Revised Penal Code, primarily Article 315. It generally involves fraud or deceit resulting in damage or prejudice to another person. Because estafa is a criminal case, withdrawing a complaint is not as simple as taking back a private dispute. Once the matter has reached law enforcement, the prosecutor, or the court, the case may continue depending on the evidence and the stage of proceedings.

A complainant may lose interest, reach a settlement, receive payment, forgive the accused, or realize that the complaint was mistakenly filed. However, Philippine criminal law treats estafa as an offense against the State, not merely against the private complainant. The complainant’s withdrawal may affect the case, but it does not automatically end it.

This article explains the Philippine legal context of withdrawing an estafa complaint, including its effect during barangay proceedings, police investigation, preliminary investigation, and court trial.

II. What Is Estafa?

Estafa is a form of swindling. It usually involves obtaining money, property, services, or credit through deceit, abuse of confidence, or fraudulent means.

Under Article 315 of the Revised Penal Code, estafa may be committed in several ways, including:

With abuse of confidence, such as misappropriating money or property received in trust;
By deceit, such as using false pretenses to induce another person to part with money or property;
Through fraudulent means, such as issuing certain bad checks, concealing facts, or manipulating transactions.

The essential idea is that the accused obtained something of value, or caused damage, through fraud or breach of trust.

III. Estafa as a Public Crime

A key principle in Philippine criminal law is that crimes are prosecuted in the name of the People of the Philippines. This means that a criminal case is not purely a private lawsuit between the complainant and the accused.

Even if the complainant wants to withdraw the complaint, the criminal action may still continue because the State has an interest in punishing criminal conduct and protecting public order.

The private complainant is important because they usually provide the facts, documents, testimony, and evidence. But legally, once a criminal case is filed, the prosecution is controlled by the public prosecutor, and once filed in court, by the court as well.

IV. Meaning of “Withdrawal” of an Estafa Complaint

In practice, “withdrawal” may refer to different things. It may mean:

The complainant no longer wants to pursue the complaint;
The complainant executes an Affidavit of Desistance;
The complainant states that they have been paid or settled;
The complainant asks the prosecutor to dismiss the complaint;
The complainant refuses to testify;
The complainant files a motion in court seeking dismissal;
The complainant forgives the accused;
The complainant admits there was a misunderstanding;
The complainant says there was no deceit or criminal intent.

These are not all legally the same. Some may have strong effects on the case; others may have little or no effect.

V. Affidavit of Desistance

The most common way to express withdrawal is through an Affidavit of Desistance.

An Affidavit of Desistance is a sworn statement where the complainant declares that they are no longer interested in pursuing the criminal complaint. It may state that the parties have settled, that the complainant has been paid, that they no longer wish to testify, or that they are withdrawing the accusations.

However, an Affidavit of Desistance does not automatically dismiss an estafa case.

Philippine courts generally treat affidavits of desistance with caution because they may be motivated by settlement, pressure, compromise, fear, intimidation, or convenience. Courts have repeatedly held that such affidavits are not by themselves sufficient to bar criminal prosecution when there is other evidence showing probable cause or guilt.

The affidavit may be considered by the prosecutor or court, but it is not controlling.

VI. Effect of Withdrawal Before Filing with the Prosecutor

If the complainant has only reported the matter to the police or the National Bureau of Investigation and no formal complaint has yet been filed with the prosecutor, withdrawal may be easier in practical terms.

At this stage, the complainant may inform the investigating officer that they no longer wish to pursue the case. They may submit a written statement or affidavit explaining the withdrawal.

However, if law enforcement believes that a crime has been committed and there is sufficient evidence, the case may still be referred to the prosecutor. This is especially possible if the evidence is documentary, if other victims are involved, or if the alleged fraud appears serious.

In many ordinary estafa complaints, the complainant’s withdrawal before prosecutor referral may effectively stop the case because the complainant is the main witness. But this is a practical outcome, not an absolute legal right.

VII. Effect During Preliminary Investigation

Most estafa cases require preliminary investigation, especially when the penalty involved is within the jurisdiction requiring such process. During preliminary investigation, the prosecutor determines whether there is probable cause to charge the respondent in court.

If the complainant withdraws during preliminary investigation, the prosecutor may consider the withdrawal as part of the evidence. The prosecutor may dismiss the complaint if the withdrawal removes the factual basis of the case or shows that the elements of estafa are lacking.

For example, dismissal may be more likely if the complainant states under oath that:

There was no deceit;
The transaction was purely civil;
There was no misappropriation;
The accused did not receive money or property in trust;
The complainant misunderstood the transaction;
The accused has fully paid and there is no remaining damage;
The complainant cannot prove fraudulent intent.

But if the complaint is supported by documents, admissions, checks, receipts, contracts, messages, bank records, or third-party witnesses, the prosecutor may still find probable cause despite the withdrawal.

The prosecutor is not bound by the complainant’s change of mind.

VIII. Effect After Information Is Filed in Court

Once the prosecutor files an Information for estafa in court, the case becomes a criminal action entitled People of the Philippines v. Accused. At that point, the complainant cannot simply withdraw the case by personal decision.

Dismissal after the filing of the Information generally requires court action. The prosecutor may file a motion to dismiss or move for withdrawal of the Information, but the court must approve it. The court has the duty to independently evaluate whether dismissal is proper.

A private complainant’s affidavit of desistance may support a motion to dismiss, but the judge may deny dismissal if there is sufficient evidence to proceed.

The court may consider:

Whether probable cause exists;
Whether the affidavit appears voluntary;
Whether the complainant’s testimony is indispensable;
Whether documentary evidence remains sufficient;
Whether the case involves public interest;
Whether dismissal would amount to improper compromise of criminal liability;
Whether the accused’s right to speedy trial is implicated;
Whether the prosecution can still prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt.

The complainant’s withdrawal is influential but not decisive.

IX. Civil Settlement Does Not Automatically Extinguish Criminal Liability

In estafa cases, parties often settle because the accused pays the complainant. Payment or restitution may affect the case, but it does not automatically erase criminal liability.

The general rule is that criminal liability is not extinguished by compromise or settlement, except in cases where the law specifically allows it. Estafa is not generally extinguished by private compromise.

Payment may be relevant in several ways:

It may show good faith if made before the alleged fraud became clear;
It may affect the complainant’s willingness to testify;
It may reduce or satisfy civil liability;
It may be considered in plea bargaining or sentencing;
It may support a claim that the matter was civil rather than criminal;
It may influence prosecutorial discretion before filing in court.

But if estafa was already committed, later payment does not automatically undo the offense.

X. Distinguishing Civil Liability from Criminal Liability

Many estafa complaints arise from business deals, loans, investments, employment arrangements, agency relationships, or failed transactions. Not every unpaid debt or broken promise is estafa.

A complainant who withdraws may explain that the matter is only civil. This can be important.

A case is generally civil, not estafa, when the dispute involves mere failure to pay, breach of contract, inability to perform, or nonpayment of a loan without proof of fraud at the beginning.

For estafa, the prosecution must show criminal fraud, deceit, or misappropriation. If the evidence shows only a contractual obligation, the complaint may be dismissed.

However, a transaction can have both civil and criminal aspects. A person may incur civil liability to return money or property and also criminal liability if the taking was accompanied by deceit or abuse of confidence.

XI. Withdrawal Before Barangay Conciliation

Some disputes involving estafa-like allegations may first pass through barangay conciliation under the Katarungang Pambarangay system, depending on the residence of the parties, the nature of the offense, and the penalty involved.

Barangay conciliation generally applies when the parties are individuals residing in the same city or municipality, subject to statutory exceptions. However, not all estafa complaints are covered. Serious offenses or offenses punishable beyond the barangay system’s coverage may proceed directly to the prosecutor.

If the matter is still at the barangay level, the complainant may withdraw or settle the complaint. The barangay may record the settlement or issue the proper certification if settlement fails.

A barangay settlement may resolve the civil aspect, but it does not necessarily prevent criminal prosecution if the offense is beyond barangay jurisdiction or if public prosecution is warranted.

XII. Withdrawal Through a Motion to Dismiss

If the case is already in court, the complainant alone cannot simply file a withdrawal and expect dismissal. The usual procedural route is for the prosecution to file a motion, or for the accused to file a motion invoking the desistance or settlement as a ground.

A motion to dismiss may be based on:

Lack of evidence;
Lack of probable cause;
Failure to prove an element of estafa;
Complainant’s desistance;
Settlement affecting the factual basis of the charge;
Reinvestigation resulting in dismissal;
Violation of the accused’s rights;
Other procedural or substantive grounds.

The court may grant or deny the motion. Even if the prosecutor agrees, judicial approval is necessary once the case is pending in court.

XIII. Withdrawal of Complaint Versus Withdrawal of Information

These are different concepts.

A complaint is usually the initiating statement or affidavit filed by the private complainant or law enforcement before the prosecutor.

An Information is the formal criminal charge filed by the prosecutor in court.

A private complainant may withdraw their complaint or execute an affidavit of desistance. But only the prosecutor may move for withdrawal of the Information, and only the court may approve it after filing.

Thus, once the Information exists, the complainant’s withdrawal becomes only one factor in the court’s decision.

XIV. The Role of the Prosecutor

The public prosecutor has the authority to determine whether a criminal case should proceed. During preliminary investigation, the prosecutor decides whether probable cause exists.

If the complainant withdraws, the prosecutor may:

Dismiss the complaint;
Require clarification from the complainant;
Continue the preliminary investigation;
File the Information despite the withdrawal;
Recommend further investigation;
Consider the case civil in nature;
Consider settlement as relevant but not controlling.

The prosecutor must evaluate the totality of the evidence, not merely the complainant’s present preference.

XV. The Role of the Court

Once the case is filed in court, the judge is not a mere rubber stamp. The court has independent authority to determine whether dismissal is proper.

The court may deny withdrawal if it appears that:

The evidence supports the charge;
The desistance is suspicious;
The complainant may have been pressured;
Public interest requires prosecution;
The case involves serious fraud;
The prosecution can prove the case without the complainant’s cooperation;
The dismissal would defeat the administration of justice.

The court may grant dismissal if the withdrawal shows that the prosecution lacks evidence, the elements of estafa cannot be proved, or the case is essentially civil.

XVI. Can the Complainant Be Forced to Continue?

A complainant cannot generally be forced to personally desire prosecution. However, a complainant who is a material witness may be subpoenaed to testify. If subpoenaed by the court, the complainant may be legally required to appear.

A complainant who refuses to appear despite subpoena may face legal consequences, including possible contempt, depending on the circumstances.

However, if the complainant testifies that they no longer remember, no longer claim damage, or no longer accuse the respondent, that testimony may weaken the prosecution. The prosecution may still rely on documentary evidence or other witnesses if available.

XVII. Risk of Perjury or False Testimony

A complainant should be careful when withdrawing a complaint. If the original complaint was truthful, the affidavit of desistance should not falsely deny facts just to help the accused. If the original complaint was false, the complainant should not casually change statements without legal advice.

Possible risks include:

Perjury, if the complainant knowingly makes false statements under oath;
False testimony, if contradictory statements are made in court;
Obstruction concerns, if withdrawal is part of improper pressure or manipulation;
Civil liability, if false accusations caused damage;
Criminal exposure, if the original complaint was maliciously fabricated.

A truthful affidavit should explain the actual reason for desistance without inventing facts.

XVIII. Common Reasons for Withdrawal

Common grounds stated in an Affidavit of Desistance include:

Full payment or restitution;
Settlement between the parties;
Lack of interest in pursuing the case;
Misunderstanding;
Lack of evidence;
Clarification that the transaction was civil;
Forgiveness;
Family or business relationship;
Reconciliation;
Practical inconvenience of litigation;
Belief that the accused acted in good faith;
Desire to avoid further expense and stress.

Among these, the most legally significant are usually those that affect the elements of estafa, such as absence of deceit, absence of misappropriation, absence of damage, or lack of criminal intent.

Mere forgiveness or settlement is less likely to automatically end the case.

XIX. Drafting an Affidavit of Desistance

An Affidavit of Desistance should be clear, truthful, and specific. It usually contains:

The name, age, civil status, address, and identification details of the complainant;
Reference to the complaint or case title;
The name of the respondent or accused;
A statement that the complainant is no longer interested in pursuing the complaint;
The reason for desistance;
A statement that the affidavit is voluntary;
A statement that no force, threat, intimidation, or improper pressure was used;
A request that the complaint be dismissed or considered withdrawn;
Signature of the affiant;
Jurat before a notary public or authorized officer.

The affidavit should avoid vague statements if the purpose is to show that no estafa occurred. If the real reason is settlement, it should say so. If the complainant now believes there was no fraud, it should explain why.

XX. Sample Affidavit of Desistance

Republic of the Philippines City/Municipality of __________ ) S.S.

AFFIDAVIT OF DESISTANCE

I, [Name of Complainant], of legal age, Filipino, [civil status], and residing at [address], after being duly sworn, state:

I am the complainant in the complaint for estafa filed against [Name of Respondent/Accused], pending before [office/court, if any], docketed as [case number, if any].
After careful consideration, I am no longer interested in pursuing the said complaint against [Name of Respondent/Accused].
My decision to desist is voluntary and made of my own free will.
No person forced, threatened, intimidated, or improperly influenced me to execute this affidavit.
[State reason clearly, such as: The parties have amicably settled the matter; I have received full payment; I now understand that the matter arose from a civil transaction; I no longer have evidence to support the complaint; or other truthful reason.]
Because of the foregoing, I respectfully request that the proper office or court consider this affidavit and dismiss, withdraw, or terminate the complaint, subject to law and procedure.
I execute this affidavit to attest to the truth of the foregoing and for whatever legal purpose it may serve.

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have signed this affidavit this ___ day of __________ 20__, in __________, Philippines.

[Signature] [Name of Complainant] Affiant

SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN to before me this ___ day of __________ 20__, in __________, Philippines, affiant exhibiting competent evidence of identity: [ID details].

Notary Public

XXI. Settlement Agreement in Estafa-Related Disputes

If the withdrawal is based on payment or compromise, parties may also execute a Settlement Agreement or Compromise Agreement. This agreement may state the amount paid, payment schedule, acknowledgment of receipt, waiver of civil claims, and the complainant’s undertaking to execute an affidavit of desistance.

However, a settlement agreement should not state that criminal liability is automatically extinguished. Parties cannot privately nullify the State’s authority to prosecute a crime.

A settlement may validly resolve the civil aspect, but criminal dismissal remains subject to the prosecutor or court.

XXII. Estafa and Bouncing Checks

Some estafa cases involve checks. The Philippines also has Batas Pambansa Blg. 22, or the Bouncing Checks Law. Estafa and BP 22 are different offenses.

A person may face:

Estafa, if the check was part of the deceit that induced the complainant to part with money or property;
BP 22, if a check was issued and later dishonored under conditions covered by the law;
Both, depending on the facts.

Withdrawal of an estafa complaint does not automatically affect a BP 22 case, and settlement does not always automatically terminate criminal liability for BP 22. However, payment and settlement may affect prosecution, civil liability, and sentencing considerations.

XXIII. Estafa Involving Online Transactions

Estafa may also arise from online selling, marketplace transactions, cryptocurrency schemes, fake investments, job scams, identity misuse, or digital payment fraud.

Withdrawal in online estafa complaints follows the same basic principles. The complainant may execute an affidavit of desistance, but authorities may still proceed if there is sufficient evidence.

Online estafa cases may involve:

Screenshots of chats;
E-wallet records;
Bank transfers;
Delivery records;
Social media profiles;
IP or account data;
Other victims;
Cybercrime-related evidence.

If the conduct falls under cybercrime laws or involves multiple victims, the State may be more inclined to proceed despite withdrawal.

XXIV. Estafa and Corporate Officers

Estafa complaints are sometimes filed against corporate officers, employees, agents, brokers, collectors, treasurers, or business partners.

Withdrawal may be more complex when company funds or third-party investors are involved. A complainant who settles personally may not necessarily bind other injured parties or the corporation unless authorized.

If the offended party is a corporation, the affidavit of desistance should be executed by an authorized officer or representative, usually supported by a board resolution or secretary’s certificate.

XXV. Effect of Withdrawal on Civil Liability

An estafa case usually includes both criminal and civil aspects. The accused may be ordered to pay restitution, damages, or other civil liability if convicted.

If the complainant has already received full payment, they may state that the civil liability has been satisfied. This may reduce or eliminate the civil aspect of the case.

However, even if the civil liability is settled, the criminal aspect may continue. Conversely, dismissal of the criminal case may not always prevent a separate civil case, depending on the ground for dismissal and the nature of the claim.

XXVI. Withdrawal and Double Jeopardy

If an estafa case is dismissed after arraignment and without the accused’s consent, double jeopardy issues may arise. If dismissal is with the accused’s consent, double jeopardy may not attach in the same way.

The procedural posture matters greatly:

Before arraignment, dismissal usually does not trigger double jeopardy;
After arraignment, dismissal may have more serious consequences;
If evidence has begun, dismissal may be scrutinized more carefully;
The terms of dismissal matter.

Because of this, court-stage withdrawal must be handled carefully.

XXVII. Withdrawal After Conviction

If the accused has already been convicted, the complainant’s withdrawal or forgiveness generally does not erase the conviction. The case is no longer merely about whether to prosecute; judgment has already been rendered.

At that point, possible remedies may include appeal, motion for reconsideration, probation if legally available, or executive clemency in proper cases. Payment or forgiveness may be relevant to civil liability or mitigation, but it does not automatically vacate a conviction.

XXVIII. Withdrawal During Appeal

If the case is on appeal, an affidavit of desistance may be submitted, but appellate courts will still evaluate the evidence. The conviction may be affirmed if the prosecution’s evidence proves guilt beyond reasonable doubt.

Desistance during appeal is generally weak unless it directly undermines the factual basis of the conviction or shows that the prosecution’s evidence was insufficient.

XXIX. Can Estafa Be Compromised?

The civil aspect of estafa may be compromised, but the criminal aspect generally cannot be extinguished by private compromise.

This is because a crime is considered an offense against the public. The complainant’s loss may be repaired, but the alleged criminal act remains a matter of public concern.

This is especially important where fraud affects commercial trust, public confidence, banking, investments, or multiple victims.

XXX. When Withdrawal Is More Likely to Result in Dismissal

Withdrawal is more likely to lead to dismissal when:

The complaint is still at the preliminary investigation stage;
The complainant is the only source of evidence;
There is no independent documentary evidence;
The affidavit explains that an element of estafa is absent;
The matter appears purely civil;
The complainant credibly states there was no deceit or misappropriation;
The accused has paid before the case was filed, suggesting good faith;
The prosecutor finds no probable cause;
The court finds the prosecution cannot prove guilt.

XXXI. When Withdrawal May Not Stop the Case

Withdrawal may not stop the case when:

The Information has already been filed in court;
Documentary evidence strongly supports estafa;
There are other witnesses;
There are multiple complainants;
The accused made admissions;
Public interest is substantial;
The affidavit appears forced or suspicious;
The accused has a pattern of similar acts;
Cybercrime or syndicated fraud is involved;
The prosecution can prove the case without the complainant’s cooperation.

XXXII. Practical Procedure for Withdrawing an Estafa Complaint

The practical steps depend on the stage of the case.

A. If the case is still with the police or NBI

The complainant may:

Submit a written withdrawal;
Execute an Affidavit of Desistance;
Inform the investigator of settlement or correction;
Request that the matter no longer be referred to the prosecutor.

B. If the case is with the prosecutor

The complainant may:

File an Affidavit of Desistance;
Submit proof of settlement or payment;
Attend the preliminary investigation if required;
Explain why probable cause no longer exists;
Request dismissal of the complaint.

C. If the case is already in court

The complainant may:

Execute an Affidavit of Desistance;
Provide it to the prosecutor;
Appear in court if required;
Testify truthfully if subpoenaed;
Allow the prosecutor or accused to file the proper motion;
Await the court’s ruling.

The complainant should not assume the case is dismissed until there is an official resolution, order, or judgment.

XXXIII. Importance of the Case Stage

The effect of withdrawal depends heavily on timing.

Stage	Effect of Withdrawal
Before police referral	May practically stop the complaint, but not guaranteed
During preliminary investigation	Prosecutor may dismiss if probable cause is weakened
After Information is filed	Court approval is needed; withdrawal is not automatic
During trial	Case may continue if evidence remains sufficient
After conviction	Withdrawal generally does not erase conviction
On appeal	Court still reviews evidence independently

XXXIV. Withdrawal by Only One of Several Complainants

If there are multiple complainants, one complainant’s withdrawal does not necessarily affect the others. The case may continue based on the testimony and evidence of remaining complainants.

If the alleged fraud involved several victims, the prosecutor may pursue the case even if one victim settles.

XXXV. Withdrawal Where the Offended Party Is Deceased or Unavailable

If the complainant dies, becomes unavailable, or refuses to proceed, the case may still continue if there is admissible evidence and other witnesses.

However, if the complainant’s testimony is indispensable and no admissible substitute exists, the prosecution may have difficulty proving the case.

XXXVI. Evidentiary Value of an Affidavit of Desistance

An Affidavit of Desistance is evidence, but it is not conclusive. Its weight depends on credibility, timing, consistency, and the surrounding facts.

It may carry greater weight if:

It was executed voluntarily;
It was made early;
It gives a detailed explanation;
It is consistent with documents;
It shows absence of estafa elements;
It is not contradicted by other evidence.

It may carry less weight if:

It was executed after arrest or trial;
It appears to be the result of pressure;
It merely says the complainant is no longer interested;
It contradicts earlier sworn statements without explanation;
It was made after payment but does not negate fraud;
The prosecution has strong independent evidence.

XXXVII. Withdrawal and Probable Cause

At the prosecutor level, the key question is probable cause. The prosecutor does not need proof beyond reasonable doubt at this stage. The prosecutor only needs reasonable ground to believe that a crime was committed and that the respondent is probably guilty.

A withdrawal may defeat probable cause if it removes essential facts. But it will not defeat probable cause if the facts remain provable through other evidence.

XXXVIII. Withdrawal and Proof Beyond Reasonable Doubt

At trial, the issue is no longer probable cause but guilt beyond reasonable doubt. If the complainant refuses to support the charge, the prosecution may struggle, especially in estafa cases involving personal dealings.

Still, conviction may be possible if documentary evidence and other witnesses establish all elements of the offense.

XXXIX. Withdrawal and the Accused’s Remedies

An accused in an estafa case may use the complainant’s withdrawal as part of legal strategy. Possible remedies include:

Counter-affidavit during preliminary investigation;
Motion for reconsideration of prosecutor’s resolution;
Petition for review before the Department of Justice, where applicable;
Motion to quash, if grounds exist;
Motion to dismiss;
Demurrer to evidence after prosecution rests;
Plea bargaining, where legally and procedurally available;
Presentation of settlement as mitigating or factual evidence.

The correct remedy depends on the stage and facts.

XL. Withdrawal and Malicious Prosecution

If a complainant files an estafa complaint maliciously and without basis, the respondent may consider remedies after the case is dismissed, such as civil action for damages or criminal complaints if warranted.

However, mere dismissal of an estafa complaint does not automatically prove malicious prosecution. The respondent must show bad faith, malice, lack of probable cause, and damage, depending on the remedy pursued.

XLI. Ethical and Practical Concerns

Withdrawal should be voluntary. No party should threaten, harass, bribe, or coerce a complainant to withdraw. Any desistance obtained by intimidation may be disregarded and may create additional criminal liability.

Likewise, a complainant should not use an estafa complaint merely to pressure payment of a debt. Criminal proceedings should not be used as a collection tool when the dispute is purely civil.

XLII. Common Misconceptions

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

Incorrect. The prosecutor or court may continue the case.

2. “Payment erases estafa.”

Incorrect. Payment may affect civil liability and evidence, but it does not automatically extinguish criminal liability.

3. “An Affidavit of Desistance is enough.”

Not always. It is considered but not controlling.

4. “The complainant owns the criminal case.”

Incorrect. The case is prosecuted in the name of the People of the Philippines.

5. “If there is settlement, no one can be jailed.”

Incorrect. Settlement may help, but prosecution may continue.

6. “All unpaid debts are estafa.”

Incorrect. Mere nonpayment of debt is generally civil unless accompanied by fraud or deceit.

XLIII. Best Practices for Complainants

A complainant considering withdrawal should:

Determine the current stage of the case;
Make sure any settlement is documented;
Avoid signing false statements;
State the true reason for withdrawal;
Keep copies of affidavits, receipts, and agreements;
Confirm whether the prosecutor or court has acted on the withdrawal;
Appear when lawfully required by subpoena;
Seek legal advice before changing sworn statements.

XLIV. Best Practices for Respondents or Accused

A respondent or accused should:

Obtain a properly notarized Affidavit of Desistance if the complainant voluntarily agrees;
Secure proof of payment or settlement;
Submit the affidavit to the correct office;
File the proper pleading through counsel;
Avoid pressuring the complainant;
Continue attending hearings unless the case is formally dismissed;
Obtain a certified copy of any dismissal order;
Understand that settlement does not guarantee dismissal.

XLV. Conclusion

Withdrawal of an estafa complaint in the Philippines is legally possible, but its effect depends on the stage of the case, the strength of the evidence, and whether the withdrawal affects the elements of the offense.

Before the case reaches court, withdrawal may persuade the prosecutor to dismiss the complaint, especially if the affidavit shows that no deceit, misappropriation, or criminal intent existed. Once the Information is filed in court, however, the complainant no longer controls the case. The prosecutor and the court determine whether prosecution should continue.

An Affidavit of Desistance is useful but not decisive. Settlement, payment, forgiveness, or lack of interest may influence the outcome, but they do not automatically extinguish criminal liability. Estafa remains a public offense prosecuted in the name of the People of the Philippines.

The most important point is this: a complainant may withdraw cooperation, but only the proper authority can dismiss the criminal case.