SC: Rape sans resistance still rape
The SC resolved the issue of whether resistance is an element of rape, on whether the daughter should have resisted her father’s lustful designs
Daily TribuneThe SC resolved the issue of whether resistance is an element of rape, on whether the daughter should have resisted her father’s lustful designs
In cases of rape committed using force, threat or intimidation, it is not required to prove that the victim resisted, the Supreme Court has ruled.
The SC Third Division, in a decision penned by Associate Justice Maria Filomena Singh and released yesterday, affirmed the conviction of a man for the rape of his daughter.
The daughter said her father had been raping her since she was nine years old until she reached the age of 16. A Regional Trial Court had found the man guilty as charged and the Court of Appeals affirmed the conviction.
In passing judgment on the man’s appeal, the SC resolved the issue of whether resistance is an element of rape, on whether the daughter should have resisted her father’s lustful designs.
Under Article 266-A of the Revised Penal Code, there is rape when sexual intercourse is done (a) through force, threat, or intimidation; (b) when the victim is unconscious or deprived of reason; (c) through fraud or abuse of authority; or (d) when the victim is under 12 years old or is demented.
Obsolete doctrine
The Court ruled that in rape cases committed through force, threat, or intimidation, it is enough that such force, threat, or intimidation existed and was strong enough to prevent the victim from asserting their will, determined from the victim’s perspective.
The Court clarified that previous decisions stating that a woman cannot claim to be a rape victim unless she resisted were contrary to current doctrine.
The need to resist, according to the SC, tends to reinforce gender bias and insensitivity to the plight of victims, while making a mockery of the right of women to bodily integrity.
The belief that if a woman does not resist, then she consents to the rape is unacceptable in any civilized society, the SC said.
