The Supreme Court (SC) has affirmed the life imprisonment, without eligibility for parole, and P300,000 damages in each of the three qualified statutory rape cases imposed on a father who sexually abused his two minor daughters in 2015.

The father, whose name was redacted in the SC’s decision to protect the two children, wanted the High Court to reverse the ruling of the trial court which was upheld by the Court of Appeals (CA).

He said he should be acquitted because of the “inconsistencies” in the testimonies of his two daughters – one was only 11 years old and the other 14 years old at the time of the commission of the crimes.

He also claimed that his children should have shouted or sought help from her other siblings who were sleeping in the same room, and in the case of the 14-year-old daughter who was raped twice, she should have avoided to be alone with him in their house.

The rape cases were made known when one of the minor children told their elder sibling who sought the assistance of barangay (village) officials.  Rape charges were filed. The two victims testified in court, including their elder sister.  The father was convicted by the trial court.  The CA affirmed the conviction.  He appealed to the SC.

In the decision written by Associate Justice Ramon Paul L. Hernando, the SC, many times citing previous rulings, declared:  

“The Court held 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.

“Yet, a child victim should not be judged based on the course of action taken even when it is the opposite of the normal behavior of a mature individual.

“Hence, XXX (father) cannot fault AAA (14-year-old daughter) for keeping her silence while she was being defiled especially so when it was brought about by fear or an otherwise overwhelming emotion of helplessness.

“XXX argues that AAA should have been wary of being alone with him considering her testimony that the rape on March 13, 2015 was the second incident.

“XXX posits that BBB (the 11-year-old daughter) should have known that he had ill intentions when he, who was in his underwear, told her to enter the house.

“The rape victim's actions are oftentimes influenced by fear rather than by reason. The perpetrator of the rape hopes to build a climate of extreme psychological terror, which would numb the victim into silence and submissiveness.

“In fact, incestuous 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.

“Here, XXX is in no place to question the responses of AAA and BBB to the traumatic stimuli he himself created.

“This Court is aware of the theory on Child Sexual Abuse Accommodation Syndrome (CSAAS} which was introduced by Roland
Summit, M.D. in 1983 as a model for understanding why the behavior of children who have been sexually abused may seem strange to adults.

“In the United States, expert witnesses described this to have the following 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.

“Selected 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.

“Interestingly, children are often told to be wary of strangers, to cry or shout right away whenever they feel threatened. However, were children taught how to respond when the peril comes from a person so familiar, including their father?

“In such a situation, should their silence, accommodation, or helplessness be deemed inconsistent to what is normal?

“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.

“Countless incestuous rape cases come before Us 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. 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.

“Wherefore, the appeal (filed by the father) is dismissed and the decision of Court of Appeals dated Feb. 23, 2022 in CA-G.R. CR-HC No. 02676-MIN is affirmed.”