SC: Affidavits of Desistance Cannot Dismiss Trafficking Cases

The Supreme Court (SC) has ruled that affidavits of desistance by victims of exploitation are “highly suspect” and cannot be used as a basis to dismiss human trafficking cases, particularly when executed by children. In a decision promulgated on Feb. 19, the SC’s Third Division affirmed the conviction of a woman for qualified trafficking in persons involving a 13-year-old girl. The case stemmed from the recruitment of the minor to provide sexual services to a man in exchange for P15,000 in August 2016. The woman brought the girl to a hotel, instructed her to use blood-soaked cotton to make it appear she was still a virgin after the sexual encounter, and later took the P15,000 payment. The minor later executed an affidavit of desistance with her mother while trial was pending. During cross-examination, however, she admitted accepting P30,000 in exchange for signing the affidavit prepared by the woman’s counsel. When questioned by the Regional Trial Court, the minor maintained that her earlier testimony was true. The SC said affidavits of desistance in trafficking cases should be treated with caution because they may result from “coercion, influence, or other forces” that make a retraction involuntary and untrue. This concern is heightened when the victim is a child “who cannot be expected to know the full consequence of the retraction of a testimony,” the Court said, in a decision written by Associate Justice Samuel H. Gaerlan. Citing Section 8 of Republic Act No. 9208, or the Anti-Trafficking in Persons Act of 2003, as amended, the Court said trafficking cases should not be dismissed based on affidavits of desistance executed by victims or their parents or legal guardians. “The State is the party affected by the dismissal of the criminal action — not the private complainant,” the SC said, stressing that once a criminal case is filed in court, the complainant no longer has the right to decide whether it should proceed. The Court also upheld the minor’s testimony as “candid, straightforward, truthful, and convincing” and found that the woman recruited her for prostitution or sexual exploitation despite her initial reluctance. The woman was sentenced to life imprisonment and fined P2 million. She was also ordered to pay the victim P500,000 in moral damages and P100,000 in exemplary damages.