Daily Tribune“The Court of Appeals sustained the RTC’s ruling, holding that the Sinumpaang Salaysay is admissible as evidence as an exception to the hearsay rule under the Rule on Examination of a Child Witness.
An accused may be convicted of child abuse notwithstanding the victim’s failure to testify during trial. This is the Doctrine of the Unavailable Child.
Respondent XXX was charged with qualified rape. The victim was his own daughter, AAA, who was 14 years old at the time the crime occurred.
During the trial, the prosecution was unable to present AAA as a witness because her mother sent her away to prevent her from testifying against her father, XXX.
In lieu of AAA’s direct testimony, the prosecution offered her Sinumpaang Salaysay (sworn statement) along with the Sexual Abuse Protocol completed by AAA. The prosecution also presented other witnesses.
The Regional Trial Court (RTC) convicted XXX of qualified rape, citing the Doctrine of the Unavailable Child under Section 28 of the Rule on Examination of a Child Witness. The RTC gave weight to AAA’s sworn statement, as well as the testimonies of the other prosecution witnesses.
On appeal, XXX argued that the prosecution witnesses provided hearsay testimonies and that there were inconsistencies between the witnesses’ testimonies and AAA’s sworn statement.
The Court of Appeals sustained the RTC’s ruling, holding that the Sinumpaang Salaysay is admissible as evidence as an exception to the hearsay rule under the Rule on Examination of a Child Witness.
Ultimately, the Supreme Court affirmed XXX’s conviction, applying the Doctrine of the Unavailable Child.
The Supreme Court explained that this rule allows the admission of hearsay testimony of a child describing any act or attempted act of child abuse when (1) the child is unavailable due to death, physical infirmity, lack of memory, mental illness, risk of psychological injury, or absence from the hearing, and their attendance could not be secured by process or other reasonable means; and (2) the child’s hearsay testimony is corroborated by other admissible evidence.
In this case, the circumstances warranted the application of the doctrine. AAA was unavailable to testify because her mother prevented her from attending the hearing, and the prosecution was unable to secure her attendance by process or other reasonable means.
Moreover, the prosecution was able to produce other pieces of evidence corroborating AAA’s hearsay testimony.
For more of Dean Nilo Divina’s legal tidbits, please visit www.divinalaw.com. For comments and questions, please send an email to cad@divinalaw.com.
