Dear PAO,

Can the accused in a child sexual abuse case raise the past sexual activity of a victim as a defense?

Lilibeth

Dear Lilibeth,

Sexual abuse cases are often difficult for victims, especially minors, to pursue due to fear, stigma, and the possibility of being shamed or discredited in court. The Supreme Court pronounced that a victim’s sexual history or behavior cannot be used as evidence in cases of child sexual abuse. The rule was further emphasized in the case of People vs. Adrales (G.R. No. 242473, 22 May 2024, Ponente: Honorable Associate Justice Antonio T. Kho, Jr.):

“As explained in the Advisory Committee Notes to the Federal Rules of Evidence clarifying the 1994 amendments to the Federal Rules of Evidence of the United States, the rule aims to safeguard the alleged victim against the invasion of privacy, potential embarrassment, and sexual stereotyping that is associated with the public disclosure of intimate sexual details and the infusion of sexual innuendo into the fact-finding process. Further, the protection afforded by the rule likewise encourages alleged victims of sexual misconduct to institute, and to participate in, legal proceedings against alleged offenders, as it bars evidence relating to their sexual behavior or alleged sexual predisposition, whether offered as substantive evidence or for impeachment.

“More, the adoption of the sexual abuse shield rule in cases such as the one at bar is significant because our Rules on Evidence allow previous conduct as evidence under Rule 130, Section 34, as well as character evidence under Rule 130, Section 54—both of which could be used against children or minors to deleterious effect, given that fear of court process, fear of exposure or labeling, and fear that they will not be believed are major deterrents to children from seeking legal intervention. Espousal of the rule is likewise consistent with the best interests of the child, which is a paramount consideration in matters involving minors. Additionally, it would prevent a predisposition in the mind of the judge hearing the case against a child who may be, at some point, in conflict with the law.

“Considering once more that jurisprudence treats the crime of Trafficking in Persons as analogous to the crimes of seduction, abduction, rape, or other lascivious acts and as a matter of fact even deems it worse—then the testimony of Adrales, as well as Raquel, with respect to AAA’s sexual behavior or predisposition is not admissible in this case. xxx”

This ruling is consistent with Section 30(a) of the Rule on Examination of a Child Witness (RECW), which states:

“SECTION 30. Sexual Abuse Shield Rule.

“(a) Inadmissible evidence. The following evidence is not admissible in any criminal proceeding involving alleged child sexual abuse:

“(1) Evidence offered to prove that the alleged victim engaged in other sexual behavior; and

“(2) Evidence offered to prove the sexual predisposition of the alleged victim.”

This is similar to the Rape Shield Rule found in Section 6 of RA 8505, or the “Rape Victim Assistance and Protection Act,” which provides:

“SEC. 6. Rape Shield. – In prosecutions for rape, evidence of complainant’s past sexual conduct, opinion thereof or of his/her reputation shall not be admitted unless, and only to the extent that the court finds, that such evidence is material and relevant to the case.”

Thus, an accused cannot raise the past sexual activity of the victim in a child sexual abuse case as it is considered irrelevant and immaterial in determining if the alleged abuse actually happened, upholding the best interest of the child principle. The only exception to the rule is provided for in Sec. 30(b) of RECW, to wit:

(b) Exception. — Evidence of specific instances of sexual behavior by the alleged victim to prove that a person other than the accused was the source of semen, injury, or other physical evidence shall be admissible.

We hope that we were able to answer your queries. This advice was 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.

Thank you for your continued trust and support.

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]