TL;DR

The Supreme Court affirmed the conviction of Napoleon Bensurto, Jr. for two counts of qualified rape of his 9-year-old daughter. Despite the daughter’s retraction of her testimony seven years later, the Court upheld the lower courts’ decisions, emphasizing that a victim’s initial, consistent testimony, corroborated by medical evidence, holds significant weight. The Court underscored that retraction is viewed with suspicion and does not automatically invalidate prior truthful testimony, especially in cases of child sexual abuse where external pressures may influence recantation. This ruling reinforces the importance of protecting child victims and ensuring perpetrators are held accountable, even when victims later attempt to withdraw their accusations.

The Weight of Words: Can a Child’s Retraction Undo Justice in a Rape Case?

This case revolves around the harrowing experiences of AAA, a young girl who bravely testified against her father, Napoleon Bensurto, Jr., for the crime of qualified rape. The Regional Trial Court (RTC) and the Court of Appeals (CA) both found Bensurto guilty based on AAA’s initial testimony and corroborating medical evidence. However, years later, AAA recanted her testimony, claiming her mother coerced her into fabricating the charges. The central legal question became: can a rape conviction stand when the victim recants her testimony, particularly in cases of child sexual abuse? This decision delves into the complexities of witness credibility, the impact of retraction, and the enduring quest for justice for child victims of sexual violence.

The prosecution presented AAA’s detailed account of two separate rape incidents in 1999 and 2000 when she was just 9 years old. She testified how her father, Bensurto, used a rope to tie her feet and forcibly violated her, threatening her into silence. Medical examinations corroborated her account, revealing healed hymenal lacerations consistent with sexual abuse. The defense hinged on denial, alibi, and the subsequent retraction by AAA. Bensurto claimed the accusations were fabricated by his estranged wife, AAA’s mother, due to marital issues. Crucially, seven years after her initial testimony, AAA testified for the defense, retracting her rape allegations and stating her mother pressured her to lie. Despite this retraction, both the RTC and CA maintained their conviction, prioritizing AAA’s original, consistent testimony and the supporting medical findings.

The Supreme Court meticulously examined the case, affirming the lower courts’ decisions. The Court reiterated the elements of rape under Article 266-A of the Revised Penal Code, emphasizing that when the offender is the victim’s father, the element of force or intimidation is presumed due to the father’s inherent moral ascendancy over a child. The Court highlighted that AAA’s initial testimony was clear, straightforward, and corroborated by medical evidence of hymenal lacerations. This medical evidence, though indicating healed lacerations due to the delayed examination, was deemed consistent with and supportive of AAA’s account of past sexual abuse. The Court underscored that proof of hymenal laceration is not even a necessary element of rape, as long as penetration is established.

Addressing the retraction, the Supreme Court articulated a critical legal principle: recantations are viewed with extreme caution. The Court reasoned that a retraction, especially years after the original testimony, is inherently unreliable and susceptible to external influences like intimidation or monetary incentives. The Court emphasized that a solemn testimony given under oath in court should not be lightly disregarded simply because a witness later recants. To do so would trivialize court proceedings and place the pursuit of justice at the mercy of potentially unscrupulous witnesses. The Court stressed that the trial court, having observed AAA’s demeanor during both her initial testimony and her retraction, was in the best position to assess her credibility. The CA correctly upheld the RTC’s finding that AAA’s original testimony was more credible, being clear, candid, and emotionally charged, while the retraction appeared to be a later fabrication, potentially influenced by external factors given her age and unemployed status at the time of retraction.

Furthermore, the Supreme Court dismissed the defense’s arguments regarding AAA’s lack of resistance and delay in reporting the crime. The Court clarified that resistance is not an element of rape, especially when the victim is a child under the influence of her father’s authority. Lack of resistance does not equate to consent. Similarly, the Court acknowledged that delayed reporting is common in rape cases, particularly child sexual abuse, often due to fear, shame, and threats from the perpetrator. The Court found Bensurto’s defenses of denial and alibi weak and insufficient to overcome the victim’s credible testimony and corroborating evidence. Finally, the Supreme Court modified the awarded damages to align with prevailing jurisprudence, increasing civil indemnity, moral damages, and exemplary damages to P100,000 each per count, with legal interest.

FAQs

This case underscores the Philippine legal system’s commitment to protecting children and prosecuting perpetrators of sexual abuse, even when faced with the complexities of witness retraction. It highlights the crucial role of initial testimonies, corroborating evidence, and the careful assessment of witness credibility by trial courts in ensuring justice prevails in sensitive cases of child sexual violence.

For inquiries regarding the application of this ruling to specific circumstances, please contact Atty. Gabriel Ablola through gaboogle.com or via email at connect@gaboogle.com.

Disclaimer: This analysis is provided for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. For specific legal guidance tailored to your situation, please consult with a qualified attorney.
Source: People v. Bensurto, G.R. No. 216061, December 7, 2016