MANILA—An affidavit of desistance executed by a victim of exploitation is “highly suspect” and cannot by itself be used to dismiss a human trafficking case, the Supreme Court (SC) has ruled.

In a Decision written by Associate Justice Samuel H. Gaerlan, the SC Third Division affirmed the conviction of a woman for qualified trafficking in persons involving a minor.

The woman, who was the minor’s neighbor, recruited the child to provide sexual services to a man in exchange for money. She brought the minor to a hotel to meet the man and instructed her on how to make it appear that she was still a virgin after the sexual act.

The woman received money from the man before leaving the hotel room.

The minor initially received PHP 15,000 from the man, but the woman later took the money. The woman also bought the minor a cellphone and gave her PHP 3,000.

The minor’s mother later discovered the incident and filed a complaint against the woman.

Although the minor testified in court, she subsequently executed an affidavit of desistance seeking to withdraw the charges. During cross-examination, however, she admitted that she had accepted PHP 30,000 to sign the affidavit, which was prepared by the woman’s counsel.

When questioned further by the Regional Trial Court (RTC), the minor maintained that her earlier testimony was true.

The RTC subsequently convicted the woman of qualified trafficking in persons under Republic Act No. 9208, or the Anti-Trafficking in Persons Act of 2003, as amended by RA 10364, or the Expanded Anti-Trafficking in Persons Act of 2012.

The Court of Appeals affirmed the conviction and gave little weight to the affidavit of desistance after the minor confirmed the truth of her earlier testimony.

The SC sustained the conviction, citing Section 8 of RA 9208, as amended, which provides that trafficking cases should not be dismissed based on affidavits of desistance executed by victims or their parents or legal guardians.

The high court said affidavits of desistance executed by victims of exploitation must be treated with caution because they may result from coercion, pressure or undue influence.

This concern is particularly significant when the victim is a child, who may not fully understand the consequences of withdrawing testimony, the SC said.

The court also stressed that once a criminal case has been filed in court, the complainant no longer has control over whether the proceedings should continue.

The State has an interest in prosecuting crimes and is the party affected by the dismissal of a criminal action. Thus, an affidavit of desistance, particularly one executed while trial is ongoing, does not by itself warrant the dismissal of the case.

The woman was sentenced to life imprisonment and fined PHP 2 million. She was also ordered to pay the minor PHP 600,000 in damages.