Evidence of victim’s sexual history inadmissible in child abuse cases — Supreme Court

Trigger warning: Sexual abuse

MANILA, Philippines — The Supreme Court has upheld the conviction of a man involved in the trafficking of a 14-year-old girl in July 2011, stating that evidence of a victim's prior sexual conduct cannot be used in cases of child sexual abuse.

In an 18-page decision promulgated in May, the high court found the accused guilty of the non-bailable qualified trafficking in persons under the Republic Act (RA) 9208 or the Anti-Trafficking of Persons Act of 2003.

The high court imposed three consecutive life sentences on him and mandated a fine of P2 million for each count, amounting to a total of P6 million.

Additionally, he is required to compensate the victim, AAA, with P500,000 in moral damages and P100,000 in exemplary damages for each count, with a legal interest rate of 6% per year from the time the decision becomes final until the payment is completed.

The case

The accused approached the 14-year-old victim and invited her to come with him to the house of a certain Emong.

After eating and watching television, the accused and Emong left the house, but soon after, only Emong came back. 

When the victim asked where the accused had gone, Emong began touching her. Although the victim initially resisted, Emong was insistent. He restrained her arms, guided her to lie down, removed her shorts and underwear and then had sexual intercourse with her. 

The victim described the act as quick. Following this, the accused returned and handed the victim P800.

Enticed by the money from the accused, AAA accompanied him again for another encounter later that month, this time with a man referred to only as "Sir" or "Tutor." 

The victim had sexual intercourse with Sir along with her friend Mae. Afterward, they received P700. According to the high court, this sexual encounter with Sir was allegedly repeated multiple times.

The accused then introduced AAA to other people who did the same thing to her. 

During the accused’s arraignment in 2012, he pleaded not guilty.

He strongly denied the allegations against him, claiming that it was AAA who had connections with Emong and other individuals. 

He added that AAA was in a relationship with one of the individuals, Hernan. The accused also insisted that he only became aware of AAA's involvement in prostitution after spending nearly every night with her. 

He further stated that he had no part in it, as AAA was already notorious in their community for being a sex worker. 

The Regional Trial Court found the accused guilty, a decision that was affirmed by the Court of Appeals (CA), prompting the present appeal before the Supreme Court.

Court’s ruling

The high court did not find any merit in the appeal of the accused.

In upholding his conviction, the Supreme Court found that the elements of trafficking under the Anti-Trafficking of Persons Act were fulfilled:

Thus, the elements of "Trafficking in Persons" within the context of Section 4(a) of RA 9208 are as follows: (a) the act of "recruitment, transportation, transfer or harboring, or receipt of persons with or without the victim's consent or knowledge, within or across national borders"; (b) the means used which include "threat or use of force, or other forms of coercion, abduction, fraud, deception, abuse of power or of position, taking advantage of the vulnerability of the person, or, the giving or receiving of payments or benefits to achieve the consent of a person having control over another"; and (c) the purpose of trafficking is exploitation which includes "exploitation or the prostitution of others or other forms of sexual exploitation, forced labor or services, slavery, servitude or the removal or sale of organs. "67 Additionally, Section 6(a) of RA 9208 explicitly provides that "Trafficking in Persons" shall be in its qualified form "when the trafficked person is a child.

“(The accused), on the other hand, principally grounded his defense on denial. However, it does not hold water. As correctly held by the CA, denial is an intrinsically weak defense. The Court must stress as to this point that (the accused’s) denial cannot outweigh AAA's positive testimony because a categorical statement that has the earmarks of truth prevails over a bare denial, which can easily be fabricated and therefore inherently unreliable,” the court’s decision read. 

The high court rejected the accused’s argument that AAA was already involved in prostitution prior to their acquaintance. 

According to the sexual abuse shield rule outlined in Section 30(a) of the Rule on Examination of a Child Witness, evidence intended to demonstrate that victims engaged in other sexual behaviors or possessed a certain sexual disposition is inadmissible in any criminal case related to child sexual abuse.

This shield rule is designed to safeguard victims from privacy violations, potential humiliation, and sexual stereotyping that can occur when private sexual information is revealed in public. Additionally, it serves to encourage victims to report their abusers.
 

Victims of sexual abuse can report cases to the CHR Citizens’ Help and Assistance Division through the following contact details:

• [email protected]
• (02) 8294-8704
• 0920 506 1194 (Smart)
• 0936 068 0982 (Globe)