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 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,