The Supreme Court (SC) recently ruled that courts do not automatically disregard credible testimony simply because a witness later withdraws or changes it, particularly in cases involving sexual abuse.

In a decision penned by Associate Justice Antonio T. Kho, Jr. dated 6 October 2025, the SC’s Second Division upheld the conviction of a father for lascivious conduct under Republic Act No. 7610, or the Special Protection of Children Against Abuse, Exploitation and Discrimination Act. The case involved his 14-year-old daughter.

Court records showed that the victim and her nine-year-old brother were sleeping beside their father on a mattress when, around midnight, she awoke to find him attempting to remove her clothing. She managed to protect herself, and when her brother moved, the father stopped and threatened her not to tell anyone.

The following day, the victim reported the incident to her teacher, who informed the girl’s mother, then working abroad in Singapore. The teacher accompanied the victim to the police to file a report and undergo a medico-legal examination.

Rape charges were filed against the father before the Regional Trial Court (RTC). During the trial, the victim testified about the abuse, but later withdrew her testimony, stating that she had invented the allegations because her father was strict and she did not fully understand the consequences. She maintained that her decision was voluntary and aimed at “putting things in order” for her family’s peace.

The RTC convicted the father of qualified rape, citing the consistency and detail of her original testimony. The Court of Appeals later reduced the conviction to lascivious conduct under RA 7610, noting that the prosecution had not proven sexual intercourse, a ruling the SC affirmed.

The SC emphasized that withdrawing a statement does not automatically invalidate testimony. Courts must consider both the original and subsequent accounts, the context of any changes, and the reasons behind them. Credible testimony should be evaluated carefully, particularly in sensitive cases involving minors.

The father was sentenced to reclusion perpetua, or up to 40 years in prison, and ordered to pay the victim P225,000 in damages.