Affidavits of Desistance Do Not Automatically Dismiss Criminal Liability

n

A.M. No. MTJ-00-1248, December 01, 2000

n

Imagine a scenario: a heated family argument leads to a tragic outcome. The accused, facing a serious criminal charge, hopes for a dismissal based on the victim’s family’s forgiveness. But does an affidavit of desistance – a statement of non-pursuit – truly guarantee freedom? This case explores the limits of such affidavits in the context of criminal prosecution in the Philippines.

n

This case, Fabiana J. Padua vs. Judge Eufemio R. Molina, revolves around a judge who dismissed a parricide case based on an affidavit of desistance from the alleged widow of the victim. The Supreme Court (SC) had to determine whether the judge acted correctly, highlighting crucial principles about criminal liability and the role of the State in prosecuting crimes.

nn

Understanding Criminal Liability and Affidavits of Desistance

n

In the Philippines, criminal liability arises from violations of penal laws, such as the Revised Penal Code. Unlike civil cases where compromises are often possible, criminal cases involve the State as the offended party. The State has an interest in prosecuting crimes to maintain peace and order, regardless of the victim’s or their family’s forgiveness.

n

An affidavit of desistance is a sworn statement where the complainant or victim expresses their intention not to pursue the case further. While it can impact the civil aspect of a case (e.g., claims for damages), it does *not* automatically extinguish criminal liability. This is because the crime is considered an offense against the State, not just the individual victim.

n

The Revised Penal Code does not list desistance as a valid form of extinguishing criminal liability. Instead, Article 21 of the RPC defines civil obligations arising from criminal offenses:

n

“Art. 21. Civil liability of persons guilty of felony. — Every person criminally liable for a felony is also civilly liable.”

n

This means that while an affidavit of desistance might waive claims for damages, the State’s right to prosecute the criminal offense remains.

nn

The Case: Padua vs. Molina – A Judge’s Error

n

The case unfolded as follows:

n

n
• Julio F. Padua was charged with parricide for the death of his son, Bartholomew J. Padua.

n

• Mercedita Opamil-Padua, claiming to be the victim’s widow, submitted an affidavit of desistance, stating the accused was not fully to blame.

n

• Based on this affidavit, the judge dismissed the criminal complaint.

n

• Fabiana J. Padua, the victim’s mother, filed an administrative complaint against the judge, alleging gross ignorance of the law.

n

n

The Supreme Court found Judge Molina guilty of gross ignorance of the law. The Court emphasized that parricide is a public crime, an offense against both the family and the State. Here are the key points the court considered:

n

n
• Public vs. Private Offense: The Court stressed the distinction between private crimes, where desistance might have a greater impact, and public crimes like parricide.

n

• State’s Interest: The State’s inherent interest in prosecuting crimes to maintain peace and order outweighs individual desires for forgiveness.

n

• Erroneous Reliance on Affidavit: The judge erred in relying solely on the affidavit of desistance to dismiss the case. As the court stated: “Necessarily, an affidavit of desistance by the alleged widow of the victim, or for that matter, any of his other heirs, will not extinguish the criminal liability of the accused.”n

n

• Duty to Transmit Records: The Court also noted the judge’s failure to transmit the complete records of the preliminary investigation to the Provincial Prosecutor, including the complainant’s testimony.

n

n

“This is a fundamental legal principle which all judges should be conversant with,” the Court stated, underscoring the judge’s lapse in basic legal understanding.

nn

Practical Implications of the Ruling

n

This case serves as a clear reminder that affidavits of desistance are not a guaranteed