Proof that victim resisted not required in rape cases, says Supreme Court | ABS-CBN
ADVERTISEMENT
Welcome, Kapamilya! We use cookies to improve your browsing experience. Continuing to use this site means you agree to our use of cookies. Tell me more!
Proof that victim resisted not required in rape cases, says Supreme Court
Proof that victim resisted not required in rape cases, says Supreme Court
MANILA – The Supreme Court has ruled that in cases of rape committed by force, threat or intimidation, it is not required to prove that the victim resisted.
In the decision of the Third Division promulgated on June 26, 2024, an accused who filed an appeal before the high court was found guilty of rape by sexual assault, qualified rape and slight physical injuries.
In 2009, the accused took advantage of his 10-year old daughter. Similar incidents, including violence, occurred between the father and his daughter in 2011, 2012, 2015 and 2017.
During trial, the father denied the allegations against him and told the court that he caught her daughter owning a cellphone given by her boyfriend.
He admitted to the court that he got angry with his children because he did not want them to go astray but vehemently denied the charge of rape.
MANILA – The Supreme Court has ruled that in cases of rape committed by force, threat or intimidation, it is not required to prove that the victim resisted.
In the decision of the Third Division promulgated on June 26, 2024, an accused who filed an appeal before the high court was found guilty of rape by sexual assault, qualified rape and slight physical injuries.
In 2009, the accused took advantage of his 10-year old daughter. Similar incidents, including violence, occurred between the father and his daughter in 2011, 2012, 2015 and 2017.
During trial, the father denied the allegations against him and told the court that he caught her daughter owning a cellphone given by her boyfriend.
He admitted to the court that he got angry with his children because he did not want them to go astray but vehemently denied the charge of rape.
In the decision of the Third Division promulgated on June 26, 2024, an accused who filed an appeal before the high court was found guilty of rape by sexual assault, qualified rape and slight physical injuries.
In 2009, the accused took advantage of his 10-year old daughter. Similar incidents, including violence, occurred between the father and his daughter in 2011, 2012, 2015 and 2017.
During trial, the father denied the allegations against him and told the court that he caught her daughter owning a cellphone given by her boyfriend.
He admitted to the court that he got angry with his children because he did not want them to go astray but vehemently denied the charge of rape.
When is rape consummated? SC explains in landmark ruling
The Regional Trial Court however convicted the accused of rape by sexual assault, rape and slight physical injuries which were later on affirmed by the Court of Appeals.
The Supreme Court deemed the testimony of the daughter credible and found no reason to reverse the decisions of the lower courts.
“AAA’s testimony is direct, consistent, sufficiently detailed and withstood the questioning of both the defense and the RTC,” the Supreme Court said in the decision penned by Associate Justice Maria Filomena Singh.
The Supreme Court also reiterated in the decision that under the Revised Penal Code where rape was committed with force, threat or intimidation, proof of resistance is not necessary.
The court also “regretted” that its past pronouncements suggested that a woman cannot claim that she was raped unless she aggressively puts up a fight to defend her honor, chastity and virtue.
“If the law is to be interpreted such that a woman claiming that she was raped must satisfactorily establish that she resisted the sexual assault, we become complicit in perpetuating the premise that men, as a general rule, are entitled to free access to a woman's body at any given time and place because unless a woman proves she resisted such act by actively resisting a man's advances, she will be deemed to have consented to it,” the court said.
The court added that requiring a female rape victim to present proof of active resistance to judge the victim by male standards.
The court noted that in incestuous rape cases, moral ascendancy or influence supersedes the element of violence or intimidation.
“As children are raised and taught to obey their parents, it would be difficult for a child not to follow her own father's orders, no matter how perverted,” the court said.
Marcos Jr. says abortion should be allowed in rape, incest
'Abuse every day': Indian female medics speak out after brutal murder
Indian rape protests spiral into political street clashes
When is rape consummated? SC explains in landmark ruling
The Regional Trial Court however convicted the accused of rape by sexual assault, rape and slight physical injuries which were later on affirmed by the Court of Appeals.
The Supreme Court deemed the testimony of the daughter credible and found no reason to reverse the decisions of the lower courts.
“AAA’s testimony is direct, consistent, sufficiently detailed and withstood the questioning of both the defense and the RTC,” the Supreme Court said in the decision penned by Associate Justice Maria Filomena Singh.
The Supreme Court also reiterated in the decision that under the Revised Penal Code where rape was committed with force, threat or intimidation, proof of resistance is not necessary.
The court also “regretted” that its past pronouncements suggested that a woman cannot claim that she was raped unless she aggressively puts up a fight to defend her honor, chastity and virtue.
“If the law is to be interpreted such that a woman claiming that she was raped must satisfactorily establish that she resisted the sexual assault, we become complicit in perpetuating the premise that men, as a general rule, are entitled to free access to a woman's body at any given time and place because unless a woman proves she resisted such act by actively resisting a man's advances, she will be deemed to have consented to it,” the court said.
The court added that requiring a female rape victim to present proof of active resistance to judge the victim by male standards.
The court noted that in incestuous rape cases, moral ascendancy or influence supersedes the element of violence or intimidation.
“As children are raised and taught to obey their parents, it would be difficult for a child not to follow her own father's orders, no matter how perverted,” the court said.
Marcos Jr. says abortion should be allowed in rape, incest
'Abuse every day': Indian female medics speak out after brutal murder
Indian rape protests spiral into political street clashes
The Regional Trial Court however convicted the accused of rape by sexual assault, rape and slight physical injuries which were later on affirmed by the Court of Appeals.
The Supreme Court deemed the testimony of the daughter credible and found no reason to reverse the decisions of the lower courts.
“AAA’s testimony is direct, consistent, sufficiently detailed and withstood the questioning of both the defense and the RTC,” the Supreme Court said in the decision penned by Associate Justice Maria Filomena Singh.
The Supreme Court also reiterated in the decision that under the Revised Penal Code where rape was committed with force, threat or intimidation, proof of resistance is not necessary.
The court also “regretted” that its past pronouncements suggested that a woman cannot claim that she was raped unless she aggressively puts up a fight to defend her honor, chastity and virtue.
“If the law is to be interpreted such that a woman claiming that she was raped must satisfactorily establish that she resisted the sexual assault, we become complicit in perpetuating the premise that men, as a general rule, are entitled to free access to a woman's body at any given time and place because unless a woman proves she resisted such act by actively resisting a man's advances, she will be deemed to have consented to it,” the court said.
The court added that requiring a female rape victim to present proof of active resistance to judge the victim by male standards.
The court noted that in incestuous rape cases, moral ascendancy or influence supersedes the element of violence or intimidation.
“As children are raised and taught to obey their parents, it would be difficult for a child not to follow her own father's orders, no matter how perverted,” the court said.
Marcos Jr. says abortion should be allowed in rape, incest
'Abuse every day': Indian female medics speak out after brutal murder
Indian rape protests spiral into political street clashes
ADVERTISEMENT
ADVERTISEMENT
