One of the novel theories in Philippine jurisprudence and foreign jurisdictions is the Battered Woman Syndrome as a form of self-defense of a battered woman “who is repeatedly subjected to any forceful physical or psychological behavior by a man in order to coerce her to do something he wants her to do without concern for her rights” (People v. Genosa, G.R. 135981, 15 January 2004).
Another theory or syndrome that the Supreme Court recently recognized is the Child Sexual Abuse Accommodation Syndrome (CSAAS) — a syndrome proposed by Roland C. Summit in 1983 to describe how sexually abused children respond to ongoing sexual abuse.
In a recent Supreme Court decision (People v. XXX, G.R. 263227) promulgated on 2 August 2023, the Court ruled that the CSAAS theory can help in determining the credibility of child rape victims.
The court records showed that in 2015, XXX was charged with the rape of his daughters, AAA, then 14 years old, and BBB, then 11 years old. The RTC found the straightforward testimonies of AAA and BBB against their father as the perpetrator, backed by medical findings of hymenal lacerations, as credible as opposed to the bare denial of XXX. The trial court thus found XXX guilty beyond reasonable doubt of three counts of incestuous rape. During the appeal, the CA affirmed the RTC.
XXX elevated the case to the SC and raised the arguments he had raised before the CA in assailing his conviction. He claimed that AAA and BBB lacked credibility as they made inconsistent statements.
In its decision, penned by Justice Ramon Paul L. Hernando, the SC sustained the rulings of the lower courts and found that all elements of Qualified Rape were present in the case.
The Court dismissed XXX’s argument — that AAA should have shouted or made some noise when she was being raped since her siblings were sleeping in the same room — for being illogical and unpersuasive.
The Court also did not sustain XXX’s contention that AAA should have avoided being left alone with him instead of following him inside the house where she was allegedly raped again.
The High Court explained that individual differences dictate that there is no singular response when a person encounters a certain situation, especially when involving an extremely traumatic experience such as rape committed by one’s own father.
Thus, the Court held that XXX could not fault AAA for keeping her silence while she was being defiled, especially so when it was brought about by fear or an otherwise overwhelming emotion of helplessness.
The Court held that rape victims’ actions are often influenced by fear rather than by reason, with the perpetrator hoping to build a climate of extreme psychological terror that numbs the victim into silence and submissiveness.
The Court then applied the theory on CSAAS as a model for understanding why the behavior of children who have been sexually abused may seem strange to adults.
The Court cited expert witnesses in the United States who described the theory on CSAAS to have the following stages:
(1) First stage: “Secrecy,” which is explained in terms of both what an abuser does and why the child keeps the matter secret because of embarrassment or shame, “sometimes enforced” by the adult telling the child to keep it secret or suggesting negative consequences if it is revealed.
(2) Second stage: “Helplessness,” or the lack of power of a child in a relationship with a parental figure or trusted adult.
(3) Third stage: “Entrapment” and “accommodation,” which happen when the child fails to seek protection.
(4) Fourth stage: “Delayed disclosure,” which was opined to have the tendency to be delayed because of the child’s fear, shame, or emotional confusion.
(5) Final stage: “Retraction,’ which was said to involve the child’s denial that the abuse had occurred.
The Court noted that selected US courts admit expert testimony on CSAAS for the limited purpose of “disabusing the mind of common misconceptions it might have about how child victims react to sexual abuse. It is often used to rehabilitate the credibility of the witness when the abuser suggests that the child’s conduct is inconsistent with the testimony about molestation.”
The High Court recognized that there is a need to adjust one’s perspective and try to see things through the eyes of child victims. The Court also held that countless incestuous rape cases come before the courts, and the defense often attacks the credibility of the victims based on their “inconsistent” responses to what is “normal.”
According to the SC, this is not only diabolical but absurd. Thus, there is a need to correct one’s mind that these are not actually strange nor inconsistent but the normal course of action on the part of children who are victims of sexual abuse.
