Affidavit of Desistance

 

REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES SAN SA NDIGAN IGANB BAY AN QUEZON CITY

SPECIAL THIRD DIVISION

PEOPLE OF THE

Criminal Case No. SB 16

PHILIPPINES

CRM 0127

Plaintiff

For:

Grave Threats

Article 282

par. 2 of the Revised Penal Code)

versus Present

JUVENAL AZURIN

BLANQUERA

Accused.

CABOTAJE TANG

P.J.

Chairperson,

J. and FERNANDEZ ARCEGA l J.

Promulgated

x

x

RESOLUTION

CABOTAJE TANG

P.J.:

For re For res sol olu ution is accused Juvenal Blanquera Azuri rin n's Motion to Dismise dated October 20, 20~

 

 

As per Administrative pp. pp. 120-1 20-12 23, Rec Record ord

Order No. 260-2016 dated September

I, 2016.

 

Resolution Crim riminal

-2-

Cases

N(). (). SB-16 -16-CRM-O 127

Pe Peop oplle vs. Azurin rin

 

In

his motion

accused-movant

Azurin prays that the case

against him be dismissed with prejudice on the ground that the prosecution can no longer establish his guilt beyond reasonable doubt without the active participation of the private complainant. He avers that he and private complainant Jaime J. Clave have reconciled, as in fact, Clave had executed an affidavit of desistance on August 26, 2016 before Assistant City Pro ros secutor Esrnan C. Lara. ra. The prosecution filed its Comment/Opposition: to the accused mov movarrt's rrt's motion on October 28, 2016. It contends that an affidavit of desistance is not a ground for the dismissal of a criminal action, once it has been instituted in court.f Citi tin ng the case of People v. Dimaano.o the prosecution argues that the Supreme Court had ruled that a private complainant loses his right or absolute privilege to decide whether the criminal charge should proceed, since the case was already filed in court. Also, the prosecution invokes the case of People ople v Libo Libo on wherein the Supreme Court held that courts still have the discretion to disregard an affidavit of desistance executed by the offended party after an Information has been filed, since such affidavit is not binding on the court. The prosecution further submits that the afore oresaid affidavit of desistance does not mention any exculpatory ground that would negate the criminal liabi billity ity of the accused. The Court unmeritorious.

finds

.Jurispru .Jurispr udence

4

p. 123, Record pp. 125-128, Record

5

p 125, 125, Re Reco cord rd

3

6469

SCRA 6 4 47 7 2005

7358 7358 SCRA15 SCRA152 2 2001 2001 8

9

p. 126, 126, Re Reco cord rd p. 126, 126, Re Reco cord rd

the

abounds

present

holding

motion

that

of the

an

accused

affidavit

of

/

.

 

-3-

Resolution Crim rimin inal al Cas ases es No. SB SB-16-16-C CRM RM-012 -0127 Peop People le vs vs.. Azu zurin rin x------x------ --------------------------------------- ------------- ---------- ------------x

such action has been instituted in cou ourt rt.. ? Also, it is settled that onc on ce a com omp plaint or infor orm mation is filed in court ourt,, any dispos osiition of the case, whether as to its dismissal or the conviction or the acquittal of the accused, rests on the sound discretion of the court. Likewise, it has been ruled that courts must not attach persu rsuasive value to a desistance especially when it was executed as an aftert rth houg ought.t? .t? In People v. Estib stibal al,1 ,13 3 the Supre rem me Cou ourt rt enunciated: As a

rule,

a

recantation

or

an

affidavit of

desistance is viewed with suspicion and res reserva rvation. on. Juri ris sprud rudence has in inv varia riabl bly y reg regarde rded such affi ffidavit as exceedingly unrel reliabl iable e, bec because it can easil ily y be secure red d from a poor and ignorant witness, usually through intimidation or for mone onetary cons onsiderat ration. on. More oreove over, there is always the probability that it woul ould later on be repudiated, and criminal prosecution would thus be interminable. 14

Here re,, the affidavit of desistance of Jaime J. Clave was executed afte fter the Information against Juvenal Azuri rin n was filed before the Court. rt. Obviously, its execution is an afterthought; hence, it is devoi oid d of any enerv rva ating impact to the pre res sent case. Indeed, the High Tribu ribun nal had cons onsistently ru rulled that after an action has been filed in court, the private complainant had lost the ri rig ght or absol olu ute pri riv vilege to decide whether the charg rge e should pro roc ceed since the case had already reached the court and must therefore continue to be heard by it. IS gra ave threats is not con Furth rtherm rmo ore, the crime of gr ons sidere red d as a private crime or one which cannot be prosecuted except

.

10

People v. Salazar 634 S eRA 307 307 2010 2010 Se e also Sta. Catalina v. People 571 S eRA 112 2008 Spouse Spouses s

Cabico v. Judge Querijero,

522 S eRA 300 2007 , People v. Dimaano, 469 S eRA 64 647 7 20 2005 05

12

Mendoza v. People   Ju Juno no Car Cars, 722 s eRA 674 674 2014 2014 Sta. Catalina v. People, 571 S eRA 112 112 2008 2008

13

743 s eRA 215 215 2014 2014

14

p. 233 People v. Estibal, 743 SeRA 21 215 5 20 2014 14

lS

Peop eople v. Sal alaz azar ar,, 634 634 S eRA 307 307 2010 2010 , Se e also People v. Dimaano, 469 S eRA 64 647 7 20 2005 05

11

 

Resolution Crim rimin inal al Case ases No. SB SB-16 -16-C -CRM RM-01 -012 27 Pe Peop ople le vs. vs. Azu zurin rin

-4-

 

upon a com omp plaint filed by the aggri rie eved part rty y. In fact, pard rdon on in the so-called private crimes, is not a mode extinguishing crim rimin ina al lia liabi bili lity ty.. It me mere rely ly ba bars rs crim rimin ina al pros rose ecuti tion on.. Finally, as aptly pointed out by the prosecution, the priv rivat ate e comp compla lain inan ant's t's affidavit of desistance cannot equate to the dismissal of the cri rim minal case against accused Azuri rin n since an affidavit of desistance is not one of the modes of extin ex tingu guis ish hin ing g crim crimin inal allia liabili bili ty ty.. 16 WHEREFORE accu ac cuse sed d-rn -rnov ovan antt Ju Juv ven enal al Bla laq quera Azu zurin rin's 's Motion to Dismiss dated October 20, 2016 is DENIEDfo Dforr utter

lac la ck of me meri rit. t. SO ORD ORDER ERED ED.. Quez ezon on City, ity, Me Metro tro Ma Man nila ila

WE CONC CONCUR UR.: .:

MA. THE Asso

16 Amurao

M. (2013), Com Com m men entt a arries ies

on Cr Crim imin ina al Law Law

oo ook k One One p. 1081