The Supreme Court has reaffirmed that child abuse cases can continue even if the victim cannot testify in court.

In a decision written by Associate Justice Mario V. Lopez, the SC Second Division upheld the conviction of a man for raping his minor daughter.

The accused questioned the lower court rulings that found him guilty for the crime, insisting that the failure of the victim to testify in court and be cross examined by his lawyers makes the charges against him nothing but “hearsay”.

In the SC ruling, this contention was rejected as the divisiion cited"doctrine of unavailable child" under the Rule on Examination of a Child Witness.r.

Court records revealed that on May 2018, a 14-year-old girl confided to her aunt that her father had been abusing her since she was 10. The aunt reported this to local authorities, and the girl filed a sworn statement describing the abuse, including the most recent incident the night before.

She also completed a Sexual Abuse Protocol form and underwent a medical examination, which revealed signs of past sexual abuse.

The victim did not testify during the trial because her mother sent her away to prevent her appearance in court.

With the absence of the main witness, the prosecutor instead presented as evidence the girl’s sworn statement and Sexual Abuse Protocol form.

Also submitted to the court were the medical report confirming abuse and testimonies from the victim’s relatives.

The accused appealed, arguing that the victim’s statements were hearsay because she was not present to be cross-examined. However, both the Court of Appeals and the Supreme Court upheld the RTC’s decision finding him guilty of the crime.

The SC explained that under Section 28 of the Rule on Examination of a Child Witness, a child’s out-of-court statements can be used if

The rule may apply if the child cannot testify due to valid reasons like psychological harm or being unable to attend court. The statements must also be supported by other evidence.

This rule ensures that cases involving vulnerable children can proceed even if they are unable to testify. The Court noted that requiring additional evidence protects the accused’s right to due process.

The Second Division magistrates ruled that the prosecution provided enough evidence to prove the accused’s guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. The accused was sentenced to reclusion perpetua (a minimum of 30 years imprisonment) and ordered to pay PHP 450,000 in damages.