“We may have to adjust our perspective and try to see things from the eyes of child victims. Actions which we commonly see as strange and inconsistent to the norm may actually be seen by victims as the only expected recourse or way out for them.”
Thus held the Court’s First Division, in a Decision penned by Justice Ramon Paul L. Hernando, which dismissed the appeal by accused XXX. The Court affirmed the rulings of the Court of Appeals (CA) and the Regional Trial Court (RTC) convicting XXX with three counts of Qualified Rape.
In 2015, XXX was charged for the rape of his daughters, AAA, then 14 years old, and BBB, then 11 years old. The RTC found the straightforward testimonies of AAA and BBB against their father as the perpetrator, backed up by medical findings of hymenal lacerations, as credible as opposed to the bare denial of XXX. The trial court thus found XXX guilty beyond reasonable doubt of three counts of incestuous rape.
The RTC was affirmed by the CA, which ruled that the minor inconsistencies in the testimonies of AAA and BBB did not affect the substance, truth, or weight of the victims’ clear, convincing, and straightforward testimonies.
The Supreme Court, in sustaining the rulings of the lower courts, found that all elements of Qualified Rape were present in the case.
Under Articles 266-A (1) and 266-B of the Revised Penal Code, the elements of Qualified Rape are: (1) sexual congress; (2) with a woman; (3) done by force and without consent; (4) the victim is under 18 years of age at the time of the rape; and (5) the offender is a parent (whether legitimate, illegitimate, or adopted) of the victim.
The High Court, which noted that the correct term for the offense is Qualified Statutory Rape, ruled that the prosecution sufficiently established and proved that XXX had sexual congress with his daughters with force and without the latter’s consent, based on the testimonies of the victims. Their respective Certificates of Live Birth also prove their minority at the time of the commission of the crime, as well as their relationship to XXX.
The Court also dismissed the arguments of XXX challenging the testimonies of the victims for being “illogical” or contrary to “normal behavior.”
XXX argued that AAA should have shouted or made some noise when she was being raped since her siblings were sleeping in the same room, and that AAA should have avoided being left alone with XXX. As for BBB, XXX insisted that during the second incident of rape, BBB should have already known that XXX had ill intentions when she was told by XXX, who was then only in his underwear, to enter the house. According to XXX, the normal human reaction would be to run away instead of following him.
The Court found XXX’s arguments unacceptable, underscoring that XXX is “in no place to question the responses of AAA and BBB to the traumatic stimuli he himself created.”
The Court proceeded to apply the theory on Child Sexual Abuse Accommodation Syndrome (CSAAS) as a model for understanding why the behavior of children who have been sexually abused may seem strange to adults.
Under CSAAS, there are five stages:
(1) The first stage, described as ‘secrecy,’ was explained in terms of both what an abuser does and why the child keeps the matter secret because of embarrassment or shame, ‘sometimes enforced’ by the adult telling the child to keep it secret or suggesting negative consequences if it is revealed.
(2) The second stage is ‘helplessness’ or the absence of power a child has in a relationship with a parental figure or trusted adult.
(3) The third stage is ‘entrapment’ and ‘accommodation’ which happen when the child fails to seek protection.
(4) The stage of ‘delayed disclosure’ which was opined to have the tendency to be delayed because of the child’s fear, shame, or emotional confusion.
(5) The final stage called ‘retraction,’ which was said to involve the child’s denial that the abuse has occurred.
The High Court noted that select courts in the United States admit expert testimony on CSAAS for a limited purpose of “disabusing the mind of common misconceptions it might have about how child victims react to sexual abuse. It is often used to rehabilitate the credibility of the witness when the abuser suggests that the child’s conduct is inconsistent with the testimony about molestation.”
The Court also held that countless incestuous rape cases come before the courts and the defense often attacks the credibility of the victims based on their ‘inconsistent’ responses to what is ‘normal.’ “This is not only diabolical but absurd as well,’ held the Court, adding, “There is a need to correct our minds that these are not actually strange nor inconsistent but the normal course of action on the part of children who are victims of sexual abuse.”
The Court further ruled that “individual differences dictate that there is no singular response when a person encounters a certain situation, especially when involving an extremely traumatic experience such as rape committed by one’s own father.”
As to AAA and BBB’s “silence”, the Court held that rape victims’ actions are oftentimes influenced by fear rather than by reason, with the perpetrator hoping to build a climate of extreme psychological terror that numbs the victim into silence and submissiveness. “[I]ncestuous rape further magnifies this terror, for the perpetrator in these cases, such as the victim’s father, is a person normally expected to give solace and protection to the victim. Moreover, in incest, access to the victim is guaranteed by the blood relationship, magnifying the sense of helplessness and the degree of fear.”
The Court thus imposed on XXX the penalty of reclusion perpetua without eligibility for parole. He was also ordered to pay AAA PhP600,000 and BBB PhP300,000 in damages. (Courtesy of the Supreme Court Public Information Office)
Full text of G.R. No. 263227 (People v. XXX) at: https://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/263227-people-of-the-philippines-vs-xxx/