Can a Company Withdraw a Criminal Complaint?
Introduction
A company may decide to forgive an accused person, settle a dispute, or ask that a criminal complaint be withdrawn. This decision may be expressed through an affidavit of desistance, a motion to withdraw the complaint, or a corporate resolution authorizing the company’s representative to communicate its position.
However, withdrawing a corporate complaint does not automatically terminate a criminal case. Once the State, through the prosecutor, has instituted a criminal action in court, the case is no longer controlled exclusively by the private complainant. The prosecution may continue when the offense affects public order, public interest, or the administration of justice.
What Is an Affidavit of Desistance?
An affidavit of desistance is a sworn statement declaring that the complainant no longer wishes to pursue a complaint or participate actively in its prosecution. In a corporate case, it may be executed by an authorized officer, representative, or other person who properly acts for the company.
The document must be distinguished from an acquittal, dismissal, compromise judgment, or withdrawal of a criminal information. It is generally evidence of the complainant’s changed position; it is not, by itself, an order terminating the criminal case.
Who Controls a Criminal Prosecution?
Criminal proceedings are prosecuted in the name of the People of the Philippines. The State—not the private complainant—owns the criminal action. The offended company may have an interest in restitution or civil liability, but it does not possess an absolute right to determine whether the criminal charge will proceed after the case has been filed in court.
In [People of the Philippines v. Dimaano (2005)](#J2.12), G.R. No. 168168, date of decision not stated in the supplied record, the Supreme Court explained that a criminal offense is an outrage against the sovereign State. It held that an affidavit of desistance, standing alone, does not require dismissal after the criminal action has been instituted.
The same principle was reiterated in [People v. Dela Torre (2026)](#J1.17), G.R. No. 268971, date of decision not stated in the supplied record. The Court stated that the State is the party affected by dismissal and that a complainant’s role in the criminal case is generally limited to that of a prosecution witness, subject to the complainant’s civil interest.
Does a Corporate Affidavit of Desistance Automatically Dismiss the Case?
No. A corporate affidavit of desistance does not automatically dismiss a criminal complaint or criminal information. The prosecutor or the court must still determine whether dismissal is legally proper.
Before the filing of an information, the prosecutor may evaluate the affidavit as part of the records of the preliminary investigation. The prosecutor may nevertheless proceed if the evidence establishes probable cause or the applicable prosecutorial standard for filing the information.
After the information has been filed in court, dismissal rests with the court, subject to the prosecution’s control of the criminal action. The court may require the public prosecutor to comment on, oppose, or explain the requested dismissal.
In [Republic of the Philippines v. Sunga, et al. (1988)](#J4.1), G.R. No. 38634, date of decision not stated in the supplied record, the Supreme Court recognized that dismissal after the filing of the information is within the sound discretion of the court. A request based on desistance should first be referred to the prosecuting fiscal for comment because the fiscal may have reasons to oppose dismissal.
When May Desistance Be Considered?
An affidavit of desistance may be considered together with the entire record, particularly when it expressly repudiates material allegations and is shown to have been executed freely and voluntarily. It does not, however, automatically erase prior sworn statements, documentary evidence, audit findings, or testimony already given in court.
In [Tadena v. People of the Philippines (2019)](#J6.8), G.R. No. 228610, date of decision not stated in the supplied record, the Supreme Court held that desistance was not sufficient to dismiss the case where the affidavit did not repudiate the material allegations in the information. The Court treated the affidavit as, at most, an additional circumstance that could support the accused’s defense when combined with other facts creating reasonable doubt.
Similarly, in [People of the Philippines v. Ballabare, et al. (1996)](#J7.11), G.R. No. 108871, date of decision not stated in the supplied record, the Court explained that an affidavit of desistance should not be mechanically ignored, but neither should it be treated as a ground for acquittal without other circumstances affecting the credibility of the prosecution’s evidence.
Why Courts View Desistance with Caution
Courts commonly examine whether the affidavit was executed voluntarily and whether it was consistent with the complainant’s earlier statements and testimony. Desistance may be viewed with suspicion when it appears to have been obtained through intimidation, pressure, economic dependence, or monetary consideration.
In [People of the Philippines v. Buemio (1996)](#J5.22), G.R. Nos. 114011-22, date of decision not stated in the supplied record, the Supreme Court warned that affidavits of desistance may be executed as an afterthought. The Court emphasized that allowing a later change of position to automatically defeat testimony given in court could undermine the search for truth.
The court may therefore examine the timing of the affidavit, the circumstances of its execution, the identity of the person who prepared it, the presence or absence of independent legal advice, and whether the company received any payment or other benefit in exchange for desistance.
Corporate Authority Must Be Established
A company acts through its board of directors, duly authorized officers, or agents. An affidavit of desistance signed by an employee or company representative may be challenged if that person had no authority to waive the company’s civil claim, withdraw its complaint, enter into a settlement, or bind the corporation.
The corporation should ordinarily maintain supporting documents such as:
- a board resolution or secretary’s certificate;
- proof of the signatory’s authority and position;
- the settlement agreement, if any;
- proof of restitution or payment, if applicable; and
- a clear statement distinguishing withdrawal of the civil claim from withdrawal of the criminal prosecution.
Corporate authority does not, however, give the company power to compel the prosecutor or the court to dismiss a public criminal action.
Difference Between Civil Settlement and Criminal Desistance
A company may settle the civil aspect of an offense without extinguishing the State’s criminal action. Payment of the amount allegedly taken, return of property, or compensation for loss may affect civil liability and, in some cases, the assessment of the evidence or penalty. These acts do not necessarily eliminate criminal liability.
The result may differ where a specific law recognizes a legally effective settlement, where the complaint is legally dependent on a private complainant’s required participation, or where the prosecutor determines before filing that the evidence no longer supports probable cause. These situations must be assessed under the statute governing the offense and the procedural stage of the case.
Special Rules for Trafficking and OSAEC Cases
Desistance is expressly restricted in certain offenses involving vulnerable victims. Under the [2022 Revised Rules and Regulations Implementing Republic Act No. 9208, as amended (2023)](#L1.96), trafficking in persons cases should not be dismissed on the basis of an affidavit of desistance executed by the trafficked person or the person’s parent or legal guardian. Prosecutors are directed to oppose and object to motions for dismissal based on such affidavit.
The same rules prohibit any person from influencing a complainant to execute an affidavit of desistance through acts or attempted acts involving the means identified in the Anti-Trafficking in Persons Act.
Under [Republic Act No. 11930](#L2.43), cases involving online sexual abuse or exploitation of children and child sexual abuse or exploitation materials shall not be dismissed based on an affidavit of desistance executed by the victim or the victim’s parent or legal guardian. Acts that unduly pressure the complainant to execute such affidavit are punishable under the law.
These provisions show that forgiveness or settlement cannot override statutory protections where the offense involves trafficking, child exploitation, or comparable public interests.
Effect of Desistance in Mediation
In matters covered by the [Rules on Mediation in the National Prosecution Service (2019)](#I2.9), the parties may execute an affidavit of desistance or motion to withdraw the complaint after reaching a settlement concerning the civil aspect. The document may be deposited for release only upon faithful and complete compliance with the settlement terms.
The rules provide for provisional dismissal in the specified mediation process, subject to revival within the period allowed by the rules if a party fails to comply. This procedure does not establish a general right to terminate every criminal prosecution by private agreement. Its use depends on the offense, the amount involved, the stage of the proceeding, and the applicable mediation rules.
Typical Corporate Scenarios
Employee theft. A company may recover the stolen amount and execute a desistance. The prosecutor may still continue the case, especially if the evidence is strong or the offense has broader implications beyond the company’s private loss.
Estafa involving a commercial transaction. A settlement may resolve the company’s civil claim, but the criminal aspect may remain subject to the prosecutor’s evaluation and the court’s authority.
Unauthorized use of company funds. A corporate officer may be authorized to forgive the civil claim, but a board resolution cannot direct the prosecutor to abandon the State’s criminal case.
Trafficking or child exploitation connected with a business. Desistance is not a lawful basis for dismissal where the statutory prohibition applies. Prosecutors are required to resist efforts to terminate the case on that ground.
Recommended Steps for a Company
- Identify the procedural stage. Determine whether the matter is still under police investigation, pending preliminary investigation, or already filed in court.
- Confirm corporate authority. Secure the appropriate board resolution, secretary’s certificate, or written authorization.
- Separate civil and criminal positions. State whether the company is waiving only its civil claim or is also requesting that the prosecution reconsider the criminal charge.
- Document voluntariness. Record the settlement terms, payment, legal advice, and absence of coercion or improper pressure.
- Submit the document properly. File the affidavit with the prosecutor or court and expect the public prosecutor to evaluate and respond to it.
- Preserve evidence. Do not destroy records, withdraw access logs, alter accounting entries, or compromise evidence needed for the prosecution.
Final Observations
A company may forgive an accused person and may express that decision through an affidavit of desistance. The legal effect, however, is limited: it may affect the company’s civil claim and may be considered as part of the evidence, but it does not automatically extinguish the State’s authority to prosecute.
The safer approach is to prepare a properly authorized document, state precisely what the company is waiving, comply with any applicable mediation or special-offense rules, and allow the prosecutor or court to determine whether the criminal case should continue. Where public interest, vulnerable victims, or serious criminal conduct is involved, the prosecution may proceed despite the company’s forgiveness.
About Nicolas and De Vega Law Offices
Nicolas and de Vega Law Offices is a full-service law firm in the Philippines. You may visit us at the 16th Flr., Suite 1607 AIC Burgundy Empire Tower, ADB Ave., Ortigas Center, 1605 Pasig City, Metro Manila, Philippines. You may also call us at +632 84706126, +632 84706130, +632 84016392 or e-mail us at [email protected]. Visit our website https://ndvlaw.com.
