Republic of the Philippines

REGIONAL TRIAL COURT

11th Judicial Region
Branch 4
Island Garden City of Samal, Davao del Norte

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES,

-versus- CRIM.CASE NO. 12345

For: “RAPE”

GERALD ANDERSON,
Accused.
x------------------------x

OPPOSITION
(To the Motion to Dismiss dated 3 January 2023)

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, by and through the undersigned

State Prosecutor, in the above-entitled case and unto this Honorable Court,
respectfully files this OPPOSITION to the Motion to Dismiss dated 3
January 2023 and respectfully states that:

1) On 3 January 2023, Accused, through counsel, filed a

MOTION TO DISMISS based on the Affidavit of Desistance
executed by MAJA SALVADOR, the Complainant, in
Criminal Case no. 12345. The Motion was received by the
undersigned State Prosecutor on the same date.

2) The Accused argues that the Motion was filed on the ground
that without the complainant’s active participation and
testimony, the prosecution will find it hard to prove his guilt
beyond reasonable doubt.

3) Upon thorough review of the Accused’s averments, the

prosecution respectfully submits that the said Motion to
Dismiss is bereft of merit.

MERE ISSUANCE OF AN AFFIDAVIT

OF DESISTANCE IS NOT A GROUND
FOR DISMISSAL OF AN ACTION
 As a rule, a recantation or an affidavit of desistance is viewed with
suspicion and reservation. Jurisprudence has invariably regarded such
affidavit as exceedingly unreliable, because it can easily be secured from a
poor and ignorant witness, usually through intimidation or for monetary
consideration. Moreover, there is always the probability that it would later
on be repudiated, and criminal prosecution would thus be interminable.1

The mere issuance of such Affidavit is not a ground for dismissal of

an action once it has been instituted in Court. A private complainant loses
the right or absolute privilege to decide whether the rape charge should
proceed, because the case was already filed and must therefore continue to
be heard by the trial court.2 The Court had already acquired jurisdiction over
the case and control over the proceedings.

DESISTANCE OF OFFENDED PARTY

NOT AMONG GROUNDS TO EXTINGUISH
CRIMINAL LIABILITY

In rape case under ART. 266-C of the Revised Penal Code3, as

amended by R.A. No. 8353, September 30, 1997, the law does not include
desistance of the offended party as a ground for extinction of criminal
liability whether total or partial. After the institution of the criminal action,
any pardon given by the complainant to the offender would be unavailing,
except of course when the offender validly married the offended party.

The prosecution further submits that the Affidavit of Desistance does

not mention any exculpatory ground that would negate the criminal liability
of the accused. MAJA SALVADOR merely stated that “the Accused is
innocent of the crime charged since, in truth, he never raped me” was a mere
legal conclusion, bereft of any details. It more likely emanated from a
trained legal mind and not from the complainant.

RAPE IS NO LONGER
CONSIDERED A PRIVATE
CRIME

Rape has been reclassified as a crime against persons upon the

issuance of Republic Act no. 83534 or the Anti-Rape Law of 1997. As such,

1
Victoriano v. People of the Philippines, G.R. Nos. 171322-24, November 30, 2006.
2
People v. Ramirez, Jr., G.R. Nos. 150079-80, June 10, 2004.
3
Revised Penal Code, Art. 226-C, as amended by Republic Act no. 8353 (1997).
4
Republic Act No. 8353 (1997), Sec. 2.
rape may now be prosecuted de officio. A complaint for rape commenced by
the offended party is no longer necessary for its prosecution.

Therefore, an Affidavit of Desistance, which may be considered as

pardon by the offended party, is not by itself a ground for the dismissal of a
rape action over which the court has already assumed jurisdiction.5 The
prosecution shall continue even if the offended party pardons the accused or
drops the case.

PRAYER

WHEREFORE, premises considered, it is respectfully prayed of this

Honorable Court to DENY the Motion to Dismiss dated 3 January 2023 for
utter lack of merit.

Such other reliefs and remedies as are just and equitable under the
foregoing premises are equally prayed for.

Island Garden City of Davao, Davao del Norte, 5 January 2023.

ATTY. KAREN JOY R. MASAPOL

Prosecutor II
Roll No. 27041/ April 27, 2022
MCLE Compliance No. VI-9011997
Office of the City Prosecutor - Island Garden City of Samal
2nd Floor, Babak District Island
Island Garden City of Samal, Philippines

COPY FURNISHED

ATTY. KUEHNE KILLI BOLO

Counsel for the Accused
Door No. 1, 3rd Floor, Dela Cruz Building,
Rose Street, Babak District
Island Garden City of Samal, Philippines

5
People v. Dimaano, 506 Phil. 630, 647 (2005).