Photo from Pexels | KATRIN BOLOVTSOVA
The following post does not create a lawyer-client relationship between Alburo Alburo and Associates Law Offices (or any of its lawyers) and the reader. It is still best for you to engage the services of a lawyer or you may directly contact and consult Alburo Alburo and Associates Law Offices to address your specific legal concerns, if there is any.
Also, the matters contained in the following were written in accordance with the law, rules, and jurisprudence prevailing at the time of writing and posting, and do not include any future developments on the subject matter under discussion.
AT A GLANCE:
In the case People of the People of the Philippines vs. Adrian Adrales y Jurado a.k.a. “Alicia Bakla”, the Supreme Court reiterated that under Section 30(a) of the Rule on Examination of a Child Witness (RECW), evidence offered to prove that the alleged victim engaged in other sexual behavior, or offered to prove the sexual predisposition of the alleged victim, is not admissible in any criminal proceeding involving alleged child sexual abuse.
AAA, a fourteen (14) year old minor, was on her way home from a party when Adrales introduced himself and invited her to come with him to the house of his friend named “Emong”. After eating and watching television, Emong started to touch her legs, to which AAA resisted. However, Emong was persistent and in the end he had sexual intercourse with AAA. Adrales then gave AAA PHP800.00 after the incident.
Enticed by the money that Adrales gave her, AAA once more went with Adrales to a “raket within the same month”, wherein AAA had sexual intercourse with a man together with her friend, Mae. After the sexual encounter, AAA and Mae received PHP 700.00. Thereafter, AAA went to other rackets and received money in exchange for sex.
Adrales claimed that he had nothing to do with it since AAA was already well-known in their place as a woman of ill-repute, or a “pokpok” or “pila-balde”. The defense also presented Raquel Constantino, who claimed that she knew AAA for ten (10) years and that her husband admitted to her that he and AAA were in a relationship two months before AAA first met Adrales.
The Regional Trial Court (RTC) ruled that Adrales was guilty of three counts of qualified trafficking in persons. It held that the evidence clearly showed that Adrales took advantage of AAA’s vulnerability, as she was just fourteen (14) years old at the time when the offenses were committed. According to the RTC, the best evidence against Adrales was his own admission that he escorted AAA to, and was present in all the places where AAA was sexually exploited by Emong, and other men, even to the extent that he waited for the consummation of the sexual acts and had to leave together with AAA each time. The trial court also found that this circumstance gave credence to AAA’s testimony that Adrales acted as her manager and had to wait for his share in the payment for the sexual services offered by AAA. Additionally, it rejected as immaterial and irrelevant Adrales’s defense that AAA is a well-known prostitute, citing in this regard the “sexual shield rule.”
The Court of Appeals (CA) affirmed the RTC’s Decision and held that AAA’s testimony consistently identified Adrales as the one who pimped her to his friends, handled “bookings” for her “services,” and enticed her with stories of money, and other luxuries. It also concurred with the RTC that Adrales’s denial does not deserve credence, and similarly rebuffed his defense that AAA was a well-known prostitute, pursuant to the sexual abuse shield rule under the Rule on Examination of a Child Witness.
ISSUE: Whether the CA erred in affirming Adrales’s conviction for qualified trafficking in persons under Section 4(a), in relation to Section 6(a) of RA 9208.
SUPREME COURT’S DECISION
The CA was correct in affirming Adrales’s conviction for qualified trafficking in persons under Section 4(a), in relation to Section 6(a) of RA 9208. Under Section 30(a) of the Rule on Examination of a Child Witness (RECW), evidence offered to prove that the alleged victim engaged in other sexual behavior, or offered to prove the sexual predisposition of the alleged victim, is not admissible in any criminal proceeding involving alleged child sexual abuse, to wit:
SECTION 30. Sexual Abuse Shield Rule. –
(a) Inadmissible evidence. – The following evidence is not admissible in any criminal proceeding involving alleged child sexual abuse:
(1) Evidence offered to prove that the alleged victim engaged in other sexual behavior; and
(2) Evidence offered to prove the sexual predisposition of the alleged victim.
The sexual abuse shield rule is a variation of the rape shield rule found under Section 6 of RA 8505, or the “Rape Victim Assistance and Protection Act,” which states:
SEC. 6 Rape Shield. – In prosecutions for rape, evidence of complainant’s past sexual conduct, opinion thereof or of his/her reputation shall not be admitted unless, and only to the extent that the court finds, that such evidence is material and relevant to the case.
Both of these rules, and particularly Section 30 of the RECW, mirror Rule 412 (a) of the Federal Rules of Evidence. The Federal Rules of Evidence aim to safeguard the alleged victim against the invasion of privacy, potential embarrassment, and sexual stereotyping that is associated with the public disclosure of intimate sexual details and the infusion of sexual innuendo into the fact-finding process. Further, the protection afforded by the rule likewise encourages alleged victims of sexual misconduct to institute, and to participate in, legal proceedings against alleged offenders, as it bars evidence relating to their sexual behavior or alleged sexual predisposition, whether offered as substantive evidence or for impeachment.
The Court also emphasized that even if it allows the admission of the said testimony against AAA’s credibility and accepts it as a fact, it will not serve to overturn Adrales’s conviction on the basis of reasonable doubt. The Court holds that Adrales would remain criminally liable in such an instance, because on one hand, AAA being a prostitute is immaterial, irrelevant, and has nothing to do with the offense committed by Adrales and is not per se determinative of whether he engaged in the acts deemed punishable by law.
Source:
People of the Philippines vs. Adrian Adrales y Jurado
G.R. No. 242473 | May 22, 2024
Click here to subscribe to our newsletter
Alburo Alburo and Associates Law Offices specializes in business law and labor law consulting. For inquiries regarding legal services, you may reach us at info@alburolaw.com, or dial us at (02)7745-4391/ 0917-5772207/ 09778050020.
All rights reserved.