The Supreme Court (SC) has adopted the term “victim-survivor” for people who have endured sexual violence, while reiterating that silence, delayed reporting, lack of resistance, or seemingly inconsistent behavior by child survivors should not automatically undermine their credibility in rape cases.
In a decision penned by Associate Justice Japar B. Dimaampao, the SC Third Division made the pronouncements as it affirmed, with modification, the conviction of a man for raping the minor daughter of his common-law partner.
“Lack of active resistance must never be equated to consent. This is all the more true in cases where the victim-survivor of rape or sexual violence is a minor,” the Court said.
The SC said its use of “victim-survivor” instead of the conventional term “victim” recognizes the harm and suffering caused by sexual violence while affirming the agency, resiliency, and continuing dignity of survivors.
FACTS AND ISSUE
The case stemmed from the rape of a minor in Ifugao in August 2018 by her mother’s common-law partner, who threatened to kill her if she disclosed the assault.
The accused denied the allegation, while the Regional Trial Court found him guilty beyond reasonable doubt of rape and sentenced him to reclusion perpetua.
On appeal, he challenged the finding of force, threat, or intimidation and the victim-survivor’s credibility, but the Court of Appeals affirmed his conviction and modified the penalty to reclusion perpetua without eligibility for parole.
The case reached the SC on the issue of whether the lower courts correctly convicted him of rape.
RULING
The SC dismissed the appeal and upheld the conviction, finding that the prosecution established the elements of rape and the accused’s identity as the assailant beyond reasonable doubt.
The Court held that the accused, as the common-law spouse of the minor’s mother, exercised moral ascendancy over her, which could substitute for force, threat, or intimidation.
Rejecting his challenges to the victim-survivor’s credibility, the SC said her credible testimony did not require corroboration, resistance was not an element of rape, and delayed reporting amid threats of violence did not by itself indicate fabrication or diminish credibility.
The Court added that the absence of physical injuries does not negate rape and that minor inconsistencies on incidental matters do not impair credibility when they do not alter the essential fact of the offense.
Cautioning against assumptions about how child survivors should react to abuse, particularly when the perpetrator is someone familiar, the Court said: “We may have to adjust our perspective and try to see things from the eyes of child victim[-survivor]s,” adding that seemingly strange or inconsistent behavior may be their “only expected recourse or way out.”
Although the prosecution proved the victim-survivor’s minority and her relationship to the accused, the SC said these circumstances could not qualify the rape because only her minority, and not their relationship, was alleged in the Information.
The Court maintained the conviction for rape through force or intimidation and imposed reclusion perpetua, deleting “without eligibility for parole,” while increasing civil indemnity, moral damages, and exemplary damages to ₱150,000 each.
Follow Tan Briones & Associates on LinkedIn for more legal updates and law-related articles.
