To begin with, Section 3, paragraph (a) of Republic Act No. 9208 or the Anti-Human Trafficking in Persons Act of 2003 as amended by Republic Act No. 10364 defines the offense of trafficking in persons as: SEC. 3. Definition of Terms – As used in this Act:
(a) Trafficking in Persons – refers to the recruitment, obtaining, hiring, providing, offering, transportation, transfer, maintaining, harboring, or receipt of persons with or without the victim’s consent or knowledge, within or across national borders by means of threat, or use of force, or other forms of coercion, abduction, fraud, deception, abuse of power or of position, taking advantage of the vulnerability of the person, or the giving or receiving of payments or benefits to achieve the consent of a person having control over another person for the purpose of exploitation which includes at a minimum, the exploitation or the prostitution of others or other forms of sexual exploitation, forced labor or services, slavery, servitude or the removal, or sale of organs.
The recruitment, transportation, transfer, harboring, adoption or receipt of a child for the purpose of exploitation or when the adoption is induced by any form of consideration for exploitative purposes shall also be considered as ‘trafficking in persons’ even if it does not involve any of the means set forth in the preceding paragraph.
Jurisprudence dictates that the elements of “trafficking in persons” are as follows: (a) the act of “recruitment, transportation, transfer or harboring, or receipt of persons with or without the victim’s consent or knowledge, within or across national borders; (b) the means used which include “threat or use of force, or other forms of coercion, abduction, fraud, deception, abuse of power or of position, taking advantage of the vulnerability of the person, or, the giving or receiving of payments or benefits to achieve the consent of a person having control over another; and (c) the purpose of trafficking is exploitation which includes “exploitation or the prostitution of others or other forms of sexual exploitation, forced labor or services, slavery, servitude or the removal or sale of organs.
Under Section 6 of the said law, the offense of trafficking of persons is qualified by certain circumstances. One of these circumstances is when the trafficked person is a “child” which is defined under the same law as a person below 18 years of age or one who is over 18 years of age but is unable to fully take care of or protect themselves because of a disability or condition.
In a fairly recent trafficking case (G.R. No. 268971) decided by the Supreme Court, the High Court emphasized that affidavits of desistance are highly suspect when the person executing the same is a victim of exploitation. This is especially true when the victim is a child or a person who cannot be expected to know the full consequence of the retraction of a testimony. While the Court cannot speculate on the reasons why victims of exploitation sometimes withdraw their claims or allegations, it cannot disregard the possibility that such decision was a result of coercion, influence, or other forces that ultimately make retraction involuntary and untrue.
As explicitly provided under Section 8 of Republic Act No. 9208, as amended, cases of human trafficking cannot be dismissed based on affidavits of desistance:
SEC. 8. Initiation and Prosecution of Cases.
- c) Affidavit of Desistance. – Cases involving trafficking in persons should not be dismissed based on the affidavit of desistance executed by the victims or their parents or legal guardians. Public and private prosecutors are directed to oppose and manifest objections to motions for dismissal.
This provision aligns with the principle that affidavits of desistance should not be given any material weight in trafficking cases as the victim or witness is generally in a situation of vulnerability or in a position of lesser power or autonomy. On this note, the execution of such affidavit does not imply that the witness lacks credibility or has the propensity to commit perjury. The execution of such affidavit of desistance could be the result of realities and considerations that make it highly unreliable. This places such testimony at a different tier compared to the previous testimony recanted by a witness and his or her succeeding testimonies in court. As we have previously declared, a testimony solemnly given before a court of justice and subjected to the test of cross-examination cannot easily be set aside.[1]
The State is the party affected by the dismissal of the criminal action-not the private complainant. Thus, it is up to the State to determine if the case should proceed. Consequently, in the prosecution of the criminal offense, the complainant’s role is limited to that of a witness for the prosecution whose interest is solely on the civil liability of the accused. Furthermore, by itself, an affidavit of desistance or pardon is not a ground for the dismissal of an action once the case has been instituted in court. This springs from the rule that in a criminal action already filed in court, the private complainant loses the right or absolute privilege to decide whether the charge should proceed.[2]
[1] G.R. No. 268971
[2] Idem