REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINESSANDIGANBAYAN

QUEZON CITY

PEOPLE OF THEPHILIPPINES,

Criminal Case No. SB-16-CRM-OI27For: Grave Threats (Article 282par. 2 of the Revised Penal Code)

CABOTAJE-TANG, P.J.,Chairperson,FERNANDEZ, S.J., J. andFERNANDEZ, B., J.

JUVENALAZURIN,

For resolution is accused Juvenal Blanquera Azurin's"Motion for Reconsideration" dated January 19, 2017,1 prayingthat the Court's Resolution promulgated on December 21, 20162be set aside and the case against him be consequentlydismiSS~

1 pp. 154-159, Record2 pp. 142-143, Record

ResolutionCriminal Cases No. SB-16-CRM-0127People vs. Azurin

In support of his aforesaid motion, the accused-movantavers that the Court may look into the possibility that theaccused-movant, who is still presumed innocent, can no longerbe proven guilty beyond reasonable doubt without the activeparticipation of the private complainant;3 that the affidavit ofdesistance executed by the private complainant cannot beconsidered as an afterthought;4 that the ruling of the SupremeCourt in the case of Sta. Catalina v. Peoples is inapplicable tothe present case;6 and that the rule that an affidavit ofdesistance does not extinguish criminal liability is notapplicable to this case.7

The prosecution filed its ((Comment/ Opposition to theMotion for Reconsideration" dated February 7, 2017.8 Therein,the prosecution reiterates that an affidavit of desistance is not aground for the dismissal of a criminal action once a criminalaction had been instituted in court; and that a privatecomplainant loses his right or absolute privilege to decidewhether tlte criminal charge should proceed after the case wasalready filed in Court.9

To be sure, the assertion of the accused-movant that theCourt may look into the possibility that his guilt cannot beproven beyond reasonable doubt without the privatecomplainant's active participation in the proceedingslO is a merereiteration of the ground he invoked in his Motion to Dis/73 p. 155, Record 44 p. 155, Record5571 SeRA 112 (2008) ~6 p. 155, Record7 p. 156, Record8 pp. 172-174, Record9 p. 173, Record10 p. 155, Record

ResolutionCriminal Cases No. SB-16-CRM-0127People vs. Azurin

dated October 20, 2016.11 This argument was squarely passedupon by the Court in its questioned Resolution promulgated onDecember 21, 2016, to wit:

Jurisprudence abounds holding that an affidavit ofdesistance is not a ground for the dismissal of an actionafter such action has been instituted in court.12 Also, itis settled that once a complaint or information is filed incourt, any disposition of the case, whether as to itsdismissal or the conviction or the acquittal of theaccused, rests on the sound discretion of the court.13

Likewise, it has been ruled that courts must notattach persuasive value to a desistance especially whenit was executed as an afterthought.14 In People v.Estibal,15 the Supreme Court enunciated:

As a rule, a recantation or an affidavit ofdesistance is viewed with SusplClOn andreservation. Jurisprudence has invariablyregarded such affidavit as exceedinglyunreliable, because it can easily be secured froma poor and ignorant witness, usually throughintimidation or for monetary consideration.Moreover, there is always the probability that itwould later on be repudiated, and criminalprosecution would thus be interminable. 16

Here, the affidavit of desistance of Jaime J. Clavewas executed after the Information against JuvenalAzurin was filed before the Court. Obviously, itsexecution is an afterthought; hence, it is devoid of anyenervating impact to the present case.

Indeed, the High Tribunal had consistentlyruled that after an action has beenfiled in co~

11 p. 121, Record12 People v. Salazar 634 SCRA307 (2010) See also Sta. Catalina v. People 571 SCRA 112 (2008) Spou sCabico v. Judge Querijero, 522 SCRA300 (2007), People v. Dimaano, 469 SCRA647 (2005)13 Mendoza v. People & Juno Cars, 722 SCRA674 (2014)14 Sta. Catalina v. People, 571 SCRA112 (2008)15743 SCRA215 (2014)16 p. 233, People v. Estibal, 743 SCRA215 (2014)

ResolutionCriminal Cases No. SB-l6-CRM-0127People vs. Azurin

the private complainant had lost the right orabsolute privilege to decide whether the chargeshould proceed since the case had already reachedthe court and must therefore continue to be heardby it.17

Moreover, the accused-movant takes exception to theapplication by the Court of the case of Sta. Catalina v.People18 to the present case. In the said case, the SupremeCourt found that the affidavit of desistance of privatecomplainant Ballecer came after the institution of a criminalaction in court, or more than two (2) years after the trial courthad rendered its decision, and while the case was pending beforethe Court ofAppeals.

Unlike in Sta. Catalina, the accused-movant points outthat the affidavit of desistance of private complainant Jaime J.Clave in this case was executed before the commencement oftrial; hence, the execution thereof cannot be considered as anafterthought. 19

In a catena of cases, the Supreme Court has consistentlyruled that courts must not attach any persuasive value to anaffidavit of desistance which comes after the institution of acriminal action in court, irrespective of when such desistance ismade during the pendency of the case.20

Evidently, the rationale for this rule is that in a criminalprosecution, the aggrieved party is the People of the Philippineswhose collective sense of morality, decency and justice had/7H People v. 5",,,,, 634 SCRA307(2010). See ,1'0 People v. Dlm"no, 469 SCRA647(2005); pp. 2.: ~Resolution, pp. 142-143, Record; Emphasis supplied rtJ/-18571 SCRA 112 (2008)

19 p. 155, Record r20 See People v. Estibal, 743 SCRA 215 (2014), People v. Salazar 634 SCRA307 (2010), Sta. Catalina v.People 571 SCRA 112 (2008) Spouses Cabico v. Judge Querijero, 522 SCRA300 (2007), People v.Dimaano, 469 SCRA647 (2005), People v. Ramirez, Jr., 431 SCRA666 (2004), People v. Manyuhod, Jr.,290 SCRA257 (1998)

ResolutionCriminal Cases No. SB-16-CRM-0127People vs. Azurin

outraged.21 Thus, once a criminal case is filed in court, thecontrol of the prosecution of a criminal offense is removed fromthe offended party's hands.22

As a final argument, the accused-movant disputes theCourt's pronouncement in its questioned Resolution that "anaffidavit of desistance is not one of the modes of extinguishingcriminal liability. "23 According to him, the extinguishment ofcriminal liability presupposes conviction and since he is not yetconvicted of the crime charged, the above-mentioned rule willnot apply.24

Even discounting the said rule in the resolution of theaccused -movant's motion to quash) the same will not materiallyaffect the result of such resolution. As hereinbefore discussed,the mere execution of an affidavit of desistance by the privatecomplainant cannot operate to automatically end a pendingcriminal action against the accused especially in this case whereno sound reason has been presented why the affidavit ofdesistance was executed only after the case was already filedwith the Court.

In sum, the accused-movant has failed to raise any new orsubstantial matters that would warrant a reconsideration of theCourt's Resolution promulgated on December 21, 2016.

WHEREFORE, the accused-movant's Motion forReconsideration dated January 19, 2017 is DENIED for beingpro forma and/ or lack of merit.

SOORDE~

21 People v. Manyuhod, Jr., 290 SeRA 257 (1998)22/d23 p. 143, Record24 p. 156, Record

ResolutionCriminal Cases No. SB-l6-CRM-0127People vs. Azurin

Quezon City, Metro Manila

PARO M.& E-TANPresidingJustice

Chairperson

TO R. FERNANDEZs ociate Justice