SC affirms conviction of father for abuse of daughter

As it affirmed the conviction of a father, the Supreme Court (SC) said that courts do not automatically disregard credible testimony because a witness later withdrew or changed it, especially in rape or sexual abuse cases.

In a 14-page decision, the SC Second Division affirmed the conviction of a father for lascivious conduct for sexually abusing his 14-year-old daughter, who recanted her testimony.

The SC said that recantations are viewed unfavorably, especially in cases of rape and other sexual abuse.

“In this case, the Court is of the considered view that as opposed to AAA277728's seemingly hollow recantation testimony on defense, her prosecution testimony was detailed, straightforward, and categorical,” the court said.

“As may be gleaned from their earlier-cited transcript of her testimony, she even turned emotional as she detailed how her biological father sexually abused her despite her clear protestations,” it added.

According to the SC, it agreed with the regional trial court’s finding that the victim’s recantation could not be fabricated.

“Thus, it is only appropriate that AAA277728's recantation should not be given any credence nor weight, and hence, rightly disregarded,” it said.

According to the SC, the victim and her nine-year-old brother were sleeping beside their father when she woke up to him trying to remove her underwear.

He touched her private parts and tried to sexually abuse her, but stopped when her brother suddenly moved. He threatened her not to tell anyone.

Following this, the victim told her teacher, who then informed her mother who was then working in Singapore. The teacher brought the child to the police.

During the trial, the victim testified to the abuse. However, when the defense called her to the stand, she withdrew her testimony and claimed that she invented the charges because her father was too strict. 

The regional trial court then convicted her father of qualified rape. 

However, the Court of Appeals reduced the crime to lascivious conduct because the prosecution failed to prove that there was sexual intercouse.

The SC agreed with this.

“In this case, the Court agrees with the CA's observation that while the Information explicitly alleged that XXX277728 inserted his finger and thereafter his penis into AAA277728's vagina, only the former act was sufficiently established by the prosecution during trial,” it said.

The decision, penned by Associate Justice Antonio Kho Jr., was promulgated in October 2025 and made public in February 2026.