Victim and survivor
The term ‘victim-survivor’ lets her story continue — a child who was harmed through no fault of her own, but who ultimately chose to step into a courtroom and speak against the man who raped her.
Words shape perception. In rape cases, “victim” has long been the default label. It names the harm accurately, but incompletely. It confines a person to the moment of abuse, defining her by the consent taken from her rather than by her choice to seek justice afterwards. The Supreme Court now acknowledges that choice.
In People v XXX271812 (G.R. 271812, 24 February 2026), the Supreme Court, through Associate Justice Japar B. Dimaampao, affirmed a man’s conviction for raping the minor daughter of his common-law partner.
At the outset, the Court declared that, instead of the conventional “victim,” it would adopt the term “victim-survivor” — a deliberate choice of words that recognizes the harm and suffering inflicted while affirming the agency, resilience and dignity of those who survive such violence.
The term was used throughout the case, as it will be in this article.
In August 2018, the victim-survivor, then about 14 years old, was asleep beside her siblings at her uncle’s house when the accused dragged her outside and raped her. He then gripped her by the neck, pointed a knife at her and threatened to kill her if she told anyone.
She later confided in her uncle and aunt, revealing that the abuse had begun when she was nine. The Regional Trial Court convicted the accused, and the Court of Appeals affirmed, adding to his ineligibility for parole.
In his defense, the accused argued that force or intimidation was never proven. The Court disagreed. In rape committed by close kin, including the mother’s common-law spouse, moral ascendancy takes the place of force or intimidation. The doctrine reflects reality: a child raised to obey the head of her household can be overpowered by his authority alone.
Nor did it matter that the victim-survivor’s account was uncorroborated. Witnesses are weighed, not counted, and a child’s credible testimony alone can convict an accused. The Court also dismissed arguments so often raised against those who report rape, emphasizing that rape can happen even with family members asleep nearby, even when there are no bruises, even when there is no active resistance, even when it is not immediately reported, and even when there are minor inconsistencies in the story.
In the end, the victim-survivor’s clear and categorical testimony prevailed over the accused’s bare denial.
The Court sentenced the accused to reclusion perpetua without declaring him ineligible for parole and ordered him to pay the victim-survivor P150,000 each in civil indemnity, moral damages and exemplary damages. It also directed the Department of Social Welfare and Development to refer the victim-survivor to a rape crisis center under Republic Act 8505.
None of these doctrines is new, but the terminology is. Language does not merely record how we view someone — it shapes our perspective. “Victim” freezes her in the worst moment of her life: someone to whom something was done, someone who did not have a choice. But the term “victim-survivor” lets her story continue — a child who was harmed through no fault of her own, but who ultimately chose to step into a courtroom and speak against the man who raped her.
The law has long measured what was taken from those who endured sexual violence. With a single hyphen, the Court has begun to honor what they did not surrender: their voice, their resolve and their dignity.
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.