SC upholds doctrine of 'unavailable child'

THE Supreme Court has upheld the conviction of a man for raping his minor daughter, affirming that child abuse cases can proceed in court even when the victims are unable to testify.

The ruling aligns with the doctrine of «unavailable child» as stipulated under the Rule on Examination of a Child Witness.

In a decision written by Associate Justice Mario Lopez, the court's Second Division confirmed the Regional Trial Court's (RTC) ruling decision in a case that highlights significant legal protections for child victims of abuse.

The case originated from a report on May 25, 2018, when the 14-year-old victim disclosed to her aunt that her father had been abusing her since she was 10 years old.

The aunt assisted the girl in filing a complaint against the father.

During the investigation, the victim provided a sworn statement to the police detailing the abuse, which included a sexually explicit account of recent incidents.

A medical examination corroborated the abuse, revealing deep-healed hymenal lacerations, indicative of sexual violence.

Advertisement

The victim was not present to testify during the court proceedings because her mother had sent her away.

In lieu of her direct testimony, the prosecution presented the victim's sworn statement and her completed Sexual Abuse Protocol, along with testimonies from relatives and the medico-legal report.

Challenging the RTC's decision, the accused argued that the absence of the victim's testimony rendered the evidence inadmissible, claiming it amounted to hearsay. The Court of Appeals, however, upheld the RTC's ruling, and the accused brought the case to the Supreme Court.

The Supreme Court's ruling clarified that under Section 28 of the Rule on Examination of a Child Witness, hearsay testimony from a child is permissible when the child is unavailable for legitimate reasons—whether due to the risk of psychological injury, lack of memory, or the inability to attend.

Advertisement

The provision ensures that legal proceedings can continue without compromising the rights of vulnerable victims.

In this particular case, the Court found that the victim's testimony to be reliable, supported by substantial evidence, and underscored the