Published 16 December 2024, The Daily Tribune
In the recent decision of People of the Philippines v. Adrian Adrales (G.R. 242473, 22 May 2024), the Supreme Court issued a critical ruling strengthening the safeguards afforded to children who have been sexually abused. This ruling makes it clear that proof of a victim’s past sexual activity is inadmissible in court since it is unrelated to the question of whether abuse took place and poses significant risks of prejudice against the victim.
The Court emphasized that by creating erroneous presumptions about the victim’s reliability or character, presenting evidence of a child’s past sexual actions might unjustly influence judges. In addition to preserving the dignity of child victims, this action accomplishes a larger objective: making sure that court cases are founded exclusively on relevant information and devoid of misconceptions regarding a victim’s past sexual activity.
Such ruling aligns with existing provisions in the Rule on Examination of a Child Witness, particularly Section 30 (a), Rule 130, which outlines the sexual abuse shield rule. Historically, introducing a victim’s prior sexual history has often led to “victim-blaming” attitudes, which can reduce the likelihood of achieving justice.
By ruling on the inadmissibility of evidence related to a child victim’s past sexual conduct, the Court signals a shift toward a more compassionate and victim-centered approach within the criminal justice system. This development aligns Philippine jurisprudence with global standards found in human rights treaties, such as the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child, which calls for member states to adopt measures that prevent re-traumatization of child victims during judicial proceedings.
This decision reshapes the evidentiary approach in cases involving child sexual abuse. Defense attorneys and prosecutors alike must focus on evidence that directly pertains to the alleged abuse, rather than attempting to discredit or cast doubt on a child’s credibility through unrelated aspects of their personal history. In this way, the ruling encourages a more just trial environment where the credibility of testimony is evaluated on relevant evidence alone.
In the development of Philippine jurisprudence on child protection in cases of sexual abuse, the Adrales case marks a turning point. The Court has prioritized the rights and welfare of child victims by prohibiting the admissibility of evidence about a child victim’s prior sexual conduct, guaranteeing a more equitable and dignified legal process. A major advancement for the Philippine justice system has been made as advocates for child protection and legal professionals now have a stronger foundation for promoting victim-sensitive approaches in judicial proceedings.
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.
