Child abuse cases can still be tried even when child victims are unable to testify in court, in accordance with the doctrine of unavailable child under the Rule on Examination of a Child Witness.
In a Decision written by Associate Justice Mario V. Lopez, the Supreme Court’s Second Division affirmed the conviction of an accused for qualified rape against his minor daughter.
On May 25, 2018, the victim, then 14 years old, confided to her aunt that her father had been raping her since she was 10 years old. Her aunt then took her to the barangay hall and the police station to file a complaint.
In her Sinumpaang Salaysay or sworn statement, the victim narrated to the police the specific acts of abuse done to her by her father, with the most recent incident happening just the night before. She also filled out a Sexual Abuse Protocol form, which stated a brief history of the incidents.
She later underwent a medical examination at the Police District Crime Laboratory. The medico-legal report indicated that she had deep-healed hymenal lacerations.
During the trial, the prosecution was unable to present the victim as a witness because her mother had sent her away to prevent her from testifying against her father.
In place of the victim’s direct testimony, the prosecution offered her sworn statement and the Sexual Abuse Protocol she accomplished when she first reported her father’s abuse to the police. The prosecution also presented the medico-legal report and testimonies from the victim’s relatives.
The Regional Trial Court (RTC), applying the doctrine of unavailable child under Section 28 of the Rule on Examination of a Child Witness. found the accused guilty of rape.
The accused appealed the ruling of the RTC to the Court of Appeals (CA). He argued that the victim’s statements should not have been allowed as evidence because she did not testify in court. This constituted hearsay, meaning her statements came from someone who could not be cross-examined. As a general rule, hearsay cannot be admitted as evidence in court.
The CA affirmed his conviction, prompting his present appeal.
In denying his appeal, the Supreme Court determined that the RTC correctly applied the doctrine of unavailable child in assessing the evidence.
Section 28 of the Rule on Examination of a Child Witness allows the admission of hearsay testimony of a child describing child abuse when the child is unavailable due to death, physical disability, lack of memory, or mental illness; possible exposure to psychological injury; or lack of reasonable means and their hearsay testimony is supported by other evidence.
Section 28 aims to prevent miscarriages of justice by allowing child abuse cases to proceed even if the child victim is unavailable. The Court recognized that vulnerable children may be pressured to avoid attending hearings to prevent them from testifying. Additionally, some child victims may be too traumatized to give their testimony.
To assess the reliability of an unavailable child’s testimony, the Court evaluates several factors, including the child’s character, the number of people who heard the statement, whether the statement was spontaneous and if there was any motive to lie, as well as the timing of the statement.
The Court stated that requiring supporting evidence protects the accused’s right to due process. Additionally, the prosecution maintains the burden to prove the accused’s guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.
In this case, the Court determined that the doctrine of unavailable child applies for two reasons: (1) the victim could not attend the hearing because the prosecution was unable to locate her, and (2) her hearsay testimony, which includes her sworn statement and the Sexual Abuse Protocol, was supported by other evidence. Therefore, her out-of-court statements may be considered by the court.
The Court also found that the prosecution established the accused’s guilt beyond reasonable doubt based on all the evidence.
The accused was sentenced to reclusion perpetua, or imprisonment of at least 30 years, and ordered to pay the victim P450,000 in damages.
