Dear PAO,

My 8-year-old niece was abused by X, who lives a few houses away from their house. According to my niece, she was playing by herself in front of their house when, out of nowhere, X pulled her to a corner lot and started kissing her neck and cheeks. He allegedly tried kissing her lips, but she punched and bit his face, which eventually caused him to let go of her. My cousin, the mother of my niece, who was doing household chores inside their house, went out to call my niece as it was about dinner time. She saw that my niece was just staring blankly. My cousin asked her if she was okay, but my niece just kept silent. It was only after two weeks that my niece told my cousin about the incident because she saw X again. They went to the barangay, and they were advised to go to the police station. My cousin’s concern is whether the allegations of my niece against X will be given weight considering her tender age and the fact that she did not scream at the time the incident happened or immediately tell anyone about it. Also, since she is the lone witness of her attacker, is it really necessary that someone else back up her testimony?

Donita

Dear Donita,

The fundamental qualification of a witness is that he or she must be able to perceive facts, and he or she must be able to make known his or her perception to others. The facts that a witness relays must only be those which he or she knows from his or her own personal knowledge. This is embodied under the 2019 Proposed Amendments to the Revised Rules on Evidence (AM 19-08-15-SC dated Oct. 8, 2019), which specifically provides that:

“Section 21. Witnesses; their qualifications. – All persons who can perceive, and perceiving, can make known their perception to others, may be witnesses.

“Section 22. Testimony confined to personal knowledge. – A witness can testify only to those facts which he or she knows of his or her personal knowledge; that is, which are derived from his or her own perception.”

As can be gleaned from the foregoing, the Rules do not distinguish as to the age of the witness. Hence, any declaration made by a qualified witness may be appreciated in court, regardless of whether said witness is a minor of tender age or a full-grown adult.

Corollary, the allegations of your niece against X relating to the assault made against her may be given weight, notwithstanding that she is only an 8-year-old child, so long as she can clearly, concisely, and consistently relay the facts of said incident.

The fact that she did not scream at the time the incident happened or immediately tell anyone about it must not also be taken against her, nor should it affect her credibility as a witness to the crime, as there is no hard-and-fast rule when it comes to a victim’s reaction to an aggression or assault. As each person is different, each victim may also react differently when faced with or after a harrowing or traumatic incident. Likewise, it is not essential that someone else corroborate the testimony of your niece if her testimony is credible enough. As elucidated by our Supreme Court, through Associate Justice Edgardo delos Santos, in the case of People of the Philippines vs. Christian Manuel y Villa (GR 242278, Dec. 9, 2020):

“x x x In a long line of cases, the Court has given full weight and credit to the testimonies of child victims, considering that their youth and immaturity are generally badges of truth and sincerity. This principle is further embodied in the Rule on Examination of Child Witness, thus:

“Sec. 22. Corroboration. Corroboration shall not be required of a testimony of a child. His testimony, if credible by itself, shall be sufficient to support a finding of fact, conclusion, or judgment subject to the standard of proof required in criminal and non-criminal cases.

“Indeed, AAA’s behavior during and immediately after each incident cannot be taken against her. The fact that AAA failed to shout or otherwise make a provocative reaction to accused-appellant’s sexual advances, as well as her act of staying in their house after the first and succeeding incidents, is totally understandable. x x x In People v. Gecomo, the Court explained:

“People react differently under emotional stress, as we have repeatedly ruled. There is no standard form of behavior when one is confronted by a shocking incident especially if the assailant is physically near. The workings of the human mind when placed under emotional stress are unpredictable. In a given situation, some may shout, some may faint, some may be shocked into insensibility, while others may even welcome the intrusion. x x x”

We hope that we were able to answer your queries. Please be reminded that this advice is based solely on the facts you have narrated and our appreciation of the same. Our opinion may vary when other facts are changed or elaborated on.

Editor’s note: Dear PAO is a daily column of the Public Attorney’s Office. Questions for Chief Acosta may be sent to [email protected]