Pag-urong ng reklamo gamit ang affidavit of desistance

ni Atty. Persida Rueda-Acosta @Magtanong Kay Attorney | August 1, 2025

Dear Chief Acosta,

Mayroong isinampa na reklamo laban sa aking kaibigan dahil diumano, ginawan niya ng kalaswaan ang babae na kapatid ng kanyang kapitbahay. Mariin na itinatanggi ng aking kaibigan ang paratang laban sa kanya. Giit pa niya, siya ay nasa ibang lungsod noong mangyari ang sinasabing insidente. Mayroong nakapagsabi sa amin na mahina na depensa ang pagtanggi at pagdadahilan. Ang kaso, ito lamang ang maaaring igiit ng aking kaibigan. Sana ay malinawan ninyo ako. – Steve

---

Dear Steve,

Sa pangkalahatan, hindi pasanin ng tao na inaakusahan na patunayan ang kanyang kawalan ng kasalanan kaugnay sa krimen na ipinaparatang sa kanya. Sa katunayan, alinsunod sa ating Saligang Batas at Rules of Evidence, ipinagpapalagay na inosente ang isang tao na inaakusahan hanggang ang kanyang pagkakasala ay mapatunayan ng higit sa makatwirang pagdududa:

“Section 14. (1) x x x

(2) In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall be presumed innocent until the contrary is proved, x x x” (Section 14 (2), Article III, 1987 Philippine Constitution)

“Section 2. Proof beyond reasonable doubt. - In a criminal case, the accused is entitled to an acquittal, unless his or her guilt is shown beyond reasonable doubt. x x x” (Section 2, Rule 133, The 2019 Proposed Amendments to the Revised Rules on Evidence)

Samakatuwid, ang pasanin ng pagpapatunay sa krimen at sa kriminal na responsibilidad ng tao na inaakusahan ay nakaatang sa panig ng nag-uusig. Kung kaya’t kinakailangan na mayroong matibay na ebidensya na magpapatunay sa bawat elemento ng krimen at sa partisipasyon ng tao na inaakusahan upang siya ay mapatawan ng karampatang kaparusahan.

Kaugnay nito, maaaring gamitin ng inaakusahan ang pagtanggi at pagdadahilan bilang kanyang depensa, subalit mahalaga na mayroong kaakibat na saksi at/o ebidensya na susuporta sa kanyang depensa. Sa maraming desisyon na ng ating Kataas-taasang hukuman, kanilang ipinaalala na ang pagtanggi at pagdadahilan ng tao na inaakusahan, nang walang ebidensya na susuporta rito, ay mahinang uri ng pagdedepensa sapagkat madali lamang umano gumawa ng istorya upang gamitin bilang pagdadahilan ngunit ito ay mahirap na patotohanan. Binigyang-diin ng Kataas-taasang hukuman ang sumusunod:

“As we explained in People v. Ogarte:

This Court has uniformly held, time and again, that both “denial and alibi are among the weakest, if not the weakest, defenses in criminal prosecution.” It is well-settled that denial, if unsubstantiated by clear and convincing evidence, is a self-serving assertion that deserves no weight in law.

In People v. Palomar, we explained why alibi is a weak and unreliable defense:

Alibi is one of the weakest defenses not only because it is inherently frail and unreliable, but also because it is easy to fabricate and difficult to check or rebut. It cannot prevail over the positive identification of the accused by eyewitnesses who had no improper motive to testify falsely. x x x.

We have also declared that in case of alibi, the accused must show that he had strictly complied with the requirements of time and place: In the case of alibi, it is elementary case law that the requirements of time and place be strictly complied with by the defense, meaning that the accused must not only show that he was somewhere else but that it was also physically impossible for him to have been at the scene of the crime at the time it was committed. x x x. (Citations omitted.)” (People of the Philippines vs. Edmundo Vitero, G.R. No. 175327, April 3, 2013, Ponente: Former Supreme Court Associate Justice Teresita J. Leonardo-De Castro; Emphasis supplied)

Sa sitwasyon ng iyong kaibigan, maaaring masabi na hindi magiging sapat ang kanyang pagtanggi at pagdadahilan lamang na siya ay nasa ibang lungsod noong mangyari ang krimen. Upang maging solido o matibay ang kanyang depensa, kinakailangan ding mapatunayan niya, sa pamamagitan ng saksi at/o ebidensya, na sadyang pisikal na imposible na naroon siya sa lugar kung saan naganap ang krimen sa panahon na naganap iyon. Bilang karagdagan na kaalaman, ipinaliwanag ng Kataas-taasang hukuman:

“Jurisprudentially, while his alibi can be considered as a valid defense, the following elements must be alleged and proven for it to be entitled merit: (a) that he was present at another place at the time of the perpetration of the crime, and (b) that it was physically impossible for him to be at the scene of the crime during its commission. “Physical impossibility refers to distance and the facility of access between the crime scene and the location of the accused when the crime was committed. He must demonstrate that he was so far away and could not have been physically present at the crime scene and its immediate vicinity when the crime was committed.” (People of the Philippines vs. XYZ, G.R. No. 244255, August 26, 2020, Ponente: then Supreme Court Associate Justice, presently Honorable Chief Justice Alexander G. Gesmundo)

Sana ay nabigyan namin ng linaw ang iyong katanungan. Ang payong aming ibinigay ay base lamang sa mga impormasyon na iyong inilahad at maaaring magbago kung mababawasan o madaragdagan ang mga detalye ng iyong salaysay. 

Maraming salamat sa iyong patuloy na pagtitiwala.

Pagtanggi at pagdadahilan lang, mahinang depensa sa krimen

ni Atty. Persida Rueda-Acosta @Magtanong Kay Attorney | July 31, 2025

Dear Chief Acosta,

Mayroong isinampa na reklamo laban sa aking kaibigan dahil diumano, ginawan niya ng kalaswaan ang babae na kapatid ng kanyang kapitbahay. Mariin na itinatanggi ng aking kaibigan ang paratang laban sa kanya. Giit pa niya, siya ay nasa ibang lungsod noong mangyari ang sinasabing insidente. Mayroong nakapagsabi sa amin na mahina na depensa ang pagtanggi at pagdadahilan. Ang kaso, ito lamang ang maaaring igiit ng aking kaibigan. Sana ay malinawan ninyo ako. – Steve

---

Dear Steve,

Sa pangkalahatan, hindi pasanin ng tao na inaakusahan na patunayan ang kanyang kawalan ng kasalanan kaugnay sa krimen na ipinaparatang sa kanya. Sa katunayan, alinsunod sa ating Saligang Batas at Rules of Evidence, ipinagpapalagay na inosente ang isang tao na inaakusahan hanggang ang kanyang pagkakasala ay mapatunayan ng higit sa makatwirang pagdududa:

“Section 14. (1) x x x

(2) In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall be presumed innocent until the contrary is proved, x x x” (Section 14 (2), Article III, 1987 Philippine Constitution)

“Section 2. Proof beyond reasonable doubt. - In a criminal case, the accused is entitled to an acquittal, unless his or her guilt is shown beyond reasonable doubt. x x x” (Section 2, Rule 133, The 2019 Proposed Amendments to the Revised Rules on Evidence)

Samakatuwid, ang pasanin ng pagpapatunay sa krimen at sa kriminal na responsibilidad ng tao na inaakusahan ay nakaatang sa panig ng nag-uusig. Kung kaya’t kinakailangan na mayroong matibay na ebidensya na magpapatunay sa bawat elemento ng krimen at sa partisipasyon ng tao na inaakusahan upang siya ay mapatawan ng karampatang kaparusahan.

Kaugnay nito, maaaring gamitin ng inaakusahan ang pagtanggi at pagdadahilan bilang kanyang depensa, subalit mahalaga na mayroong kaakibat na saksi at/o ebidensya na susuporta sa kanyang depensa. Sa maraming desisyon na ng ating Kataas-taasang hukuman, kanilang ipinaalala na ang pagtanggi at pagdadahilan ng tao na inaakusahan, nang walang ebidensya na susuporta rito, ay mahinang uri ng pagdedepensa sapagkat madali lamang umano gumawa ng istorya upang gamitin bilang pagdadahilan ngunit ito ay mahirap na patotohanan. Binigyang-diin ng Kataas-taasang hukuman ang sumusunod:

“As we explained in People v. Ogarte:

This Court has uniformly held, time and again, that both “denial and alibi are among the weakest, if not the weakest, defenses in criminal prosecution.” It is well-settled that denial, if unsubstantiated by clear and convincing evidence, is a self-serving assertion that deserves no weight in law.

In People v. Palomar, we explained why alibi is a weak and unreliable defense:

Alibi is one of the weakest defenses not only because it is inherently frail and unreliable, but also because it is easy to fabricate and difficult to check or rebut. It cannot prevail over the positive identification of the accused by eyewitnesses who had no improper motive to testify falsely. x x x.

We have also declared that in case of alibi, the accused must show that he had strictly complied with the requirements of time and place: In the case of alibi, it is elementary case law that the requirements of time and place be strictly complied with by the defense, meaning that the accused must not only show that he was somewhere else but that it was also physically impossible for him to have been at the scene of the crime at the time it was committed. x x x. (Citations omitted.)” (People of the Philippines vs. Edmundo Vitero, G.R. No. 175327, April 3, 2013, Ponente: Former Supreme Court Associate Justice Teresita J. Leonardo-De Castro; Emphasis supplied)

Sa sitwasyon ng iyong kaibigan, maaaring masabi na hindi magiging sapat ang kanyang pagtanggi at pagdadahilan lamang na siya ay nasa ibang lungsod noong mangyari ang krimen. Upang maging solido o matibay ang kanyang depensa, kinakailangan ding mapatunayan niya, sa pamamagitan ng saksi at/o ebidensya, na sadyang pisikal na imposible na naroon siya sa lugar kung saan naganap ang krimen sa panahon na naganap iyon. Bilang karagdagan na kaalaman, ipinaliwanag ng Kataas-taasang hukuman:

“Jurisprudentially, while his alibi can be considered as a valid defense, the following elements must be alleged and proven for it to be entitled merit: (a) that he was present at another place at the time of the perpetration of the crime, and (b) that it was physically impossible for him to be at the scene of the crime during its commission. “Physical impossibility refers to distance and the facility of access between the crime scene and the location of the accused when the crime was committed. He must demonstrate that he was so far away and could not have been physically present at the crime scene and its immediate vicinity when the crime was committed.” (People of the Philippines vs. XYZ, G.R. No. 244255, August 26, 2020, Ponente: then Supreme Court Associate Justice, presently Honorable Chief Justice Alexander G. Gesmundo)

Sana ay nabigyan namin ng linaw ang iyong katanungan. Ang payong aming ibinigay ay base lamang sa mga impormasyon na iyong inilahad at maaaring magbago kung mababawasan o madaragdagan ang mga detalye ng iyong salaysay. 

Maraming salamat sa iyong patuloy na pagtitiwala.

Halaga ng piyansa, maaaring taasan ng hukuman

ni Atty. Persida Rueda-Acosta @Magtanong Kay Attorney | July 30, 2025

Dear Chief Acosta,

Ang kapitbahay ko ay nahaharap sa reklamong kriminal. Diumano, sa papel na nakuha niya mula sa hukuman, ang halaga ng piyansa na itinakda para sa kanyang pansamantalang kalayaan ay P10,000.00. Matapos niyang makapagpiyansa, ipinaalam diumano sa kanya na nadagdagan ang halaga na itinakda para sa kanyang pansamantalang kalayaan na naging P20,000.00 dahil mayroon diumano na karagdagan na kaso na isinampa pa laban sa kanya. Wala siyang maibayad sa idinagdag na halaga dahil minimum lamang ang kanyang kinikita at siya lamang ang sumusuporta sa kanyang pamilya. Hindi ba ipinagbabawal sa batas ang excessive bail? Batid niya na kailangan ang piyansa dahil sa kinakaharap niyang reklamo, ngunit sadyang mabigat ang halaga na iyon para sa kanyang pinansyal na kakayahan. Sana ay malinawan ninyo ako. — Manolo

---

Dear Manolo,

Ang pagpapiyansa ay isang legal na pamamaraan upang mabigyan ng pansamantalang kalayaan, alinsunod sa batas, ang isang tao na inaakusahan ng paglabag sa ating batas kriminal. Ang garantiya na ito ay nakasaad mismo sa ilalim ng ating Saligang Batas, kabilang na rin ang pagbabawal sa pagtatakda ng labis-labis na halaga ng piyansa o excessive bail. Partikular na nakasaad sa Section 13, Article III ng ating 1987 Philippine Constitution:

“Section 13. All persons, except those charged with offenses punishable by reclusion perpetua when evidence of guilt is strong, shall, before conviction, be bailable by sufficient sureties, or be released on recognizance as may be provided by law. The right to bail shall not be impaired even when the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus is suspended. Excessive bail shall not be required.”

Ang pinansyal na kakayahan ng akusado ay isa lamang sa mga maaaring isaalang-alang ng hukom sa pagtatakda ng halaga ng piyansa. Ang krimen na inaakusa sa akusado, ang parusa para sa naturang krimen, ang reputasyon, edad at kalusugan ng akusado, ang bigat ng ebidensya laban sa kanya, ang probability ng kanyang pagsipot sa pagdinig ng kaso, ang nakaraan na pagpuga, at ang nakabinbin pang ibang kaso laban sa kanya ay ilan pa sa mga kadahilanan o factors na isinasaalang-alang sa pagtatakda ng piyansa. Ganoon pa man, sadyang hindi maaaring magtakda ang sinumang hukom ng labis-labis na halaga ng piyansa. Nakasaad sa Section 9, Rule 14 ng ating Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure:

“Section 9. Amount of bail; guidelines. — The judge who issued the warrant or granted the application shall fix a reasonable amount of bail considering primarily, but not limited to, the following factors:

1. Financial ability of the accused to give bail;

2. Nature and circumstances of the offense;

3. Penalty for the offense charged;

4. Character and reputation of the accused;

5. Age and health of the accused;

6. Weight of the evidence against the accused;

7. Probability of the accused appearing at the trial;

8. Forfeiture of other bail;

9. The fact that accused was a fugitive from justice when arrested; and

10. Pendency of other cases where the accused is on bail.

Excessive bail shall not be required.”

Alinsunod sa mga nabanggit na tuntunin sa itaas, masasabi na hindi natatanging sukatan ang pinansyal na kakayahan ng iyong kapitbahay upang masabi na labis-labis ang piyansang itinakda sa kanya. Kung mayroong karagdagan na kaso na isinampa laban sa kanya, o mayroon pang ibang angkop na sirkumstansya na nakaapekto sa pagtatakda ng karagdagang halaga ng kanyang piyansa, sadya na maaaring ipag-utos ito. Para na rin sa karagdagang kaalaman, ang awtoridad ng hukuman upang magtaas o magbaba ng halaga ng piyansa ay malinaw na nakasaad sa Section 20, Rule 14, Id:

“Section 20. Increase or reduction of bail. — After the accused is admitted to bail, the court may, upon good cause, either increase or reduce its amount. When increased, the accused may be committed to custody if he does not give bail in the increased amount within a reasonable period. An accused held to answer a criminal charge, who is released without bail upon filing of the complaint or information, may, at any subsequent stage of the proceedings and whenever a strong showing of guilt appears to the court, be required to give bail in the amount fixed, or in lieu thereof, committed to custody.”

Mainam na ibahagi rin namin ang paliwanag ng ating Korte Suprema, sa panulat ni Honorable Associate Justice Conrado Sanchez, sa kasong Reynaldo C. Villaseñor vs. Hon. Maximo Abano (G.R. No. L-23599, September 29, 1967):

“Along with the court’s power to grant bail in bailable cases is its discretion to fix the amount thereof, and, as stated, to increase or reduce the same. The question of whether bail is excessive “lays with the court to determine.” 

In the matter of bail fixing, courts perforce are to be guided at all times by the purpose for which bail is required. The definition of bail in Section 1, Rule 114, Rules of Court, gives this purpose — “the security required and given for the release of a person who is in the custody of the law, that he will appear before any court in which his appearance may be required as stipulated in the bail bond or recognizance.” x x x

We are not to consider solely the inability of a defendant to secure bail in a certain amount. This circumstance by itself does not make the amount excessive. For, where an accused has no means of his own, no one to bail him out, or none to turn to for premium payments, any amount fixed no matter how small would fall into the category of excessive bail; and, he “would be entitled to be discharged on his recognizance.” 

So it is, that experience has brought forth certain guidelines in bail fixing, x x x

But, at bottom, in bail fixing, "the principal factor considered, to the determination of which most other factors are directed, is the probability of the appearance of the accused, or of his flight to avoid punishment.” Of importance then is the possible penalty that may be meted. Of course penalty depends to a great extent upon the gravity of offense.”

Sana ay nabigyan namin ng linaw ang iyong katanungan. Ang payong aming ibinigay ay base lamang sa mga impormasyon na iyong inilahad at maaaring magbago kung mababawasan o madaragdagan ang mga detalye ng iyong salaysay. 

Maraming salamat sa iyong patuloy na pagtitiwala.