In cases of rape, we usually hear the accused claiming that there was no resistance from the victim. No resistance means the sexual act was consensual. Being consensual, there was no rape. But is this really the norm? Must the victim fight tooth and nail just so that she can claim she was raped by her aggressor? Not so, said the Supreme Court, proclaiming that:

“The Court takes this case as an opportunity to reiterate that in cases penalized under Article 266-A of the RPC (Revised Penal Code) where the rape was committed with force, threat or intimidation, proof of resistance is not necessary. In People v. Bisora, the Court ruled as follows:

“In rape, the force and intimidation must be viewed in the light of the victim’s perception and judgment at the time of the commission of the crime. As already settled in our jurisprudence, not all victims react the same way. Some people may cry out, some may faint, some may be shocked into insensibility, while others may appear to yield to the intrusion. Some may offer strong resistance while others may be too intimidated to offer any resistance at all. Moreover, resistance is not an element of rape. A rape victim has no burden to prove that she did all within her power to resist the force or intimidation employed upon her. As long as the force or intimidation is present, whether it was more or less irresistible is beside the point.”

“It is regrettable that the Court has, in the past, made pronouncements, such as those in Tionloc and Amogis, that suggest that a woman cannot claim that she was raped unless she aggressively puts up a fight to defend her honor, chastity, and virtue.” Pronouncements like this are not only contrary to the prevailing doctrine, they also tend to reinforce misguided stereotypes that perpetuate gender bias and insensitivity. The right of women to autonomy and bodily integrity should be recognized and respected just as it is for men. That there are cases that continue to invoke this line of reasoning compels the Court to state in clear terms why this position, i.e., that a woman must prove that she tenaciously resisted a man’s sexual assault before she can claim that she was raped, is both legally and morally wrong.

“The gravamen of the crime of rape is sexual intercourse against the will of the victim. Article 266-A identifies the situations within which a sexual intercourse may be concluded as against the will of the victim. Specifically, rape is deemed to be committed where the sexual intercourse occurred: (a) through force, threat, or intimidation; (b) when the offended party is deprived of reason or otherwise unconscious; (c) by means of fraudulent machinations or grave abuse of authority; and (d) when the victim is under 12 years of age or is demented. What the law penalizes is the violation of a woman’s autonomy and bodily integrity.”

“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. This is simply unacceptable in any civilized society.”

In rape, the force and intimidation must be viewed in the light of the victim’s perception and judgment at the time of the commission of the crime.

“Clearly, we now should discard that notion that no resistance means no rape. Even if the victim fully submits, for as long as there is force, threat or intimidation by the aggressor, the latter is criminally culpable.”

The quoted portion of the decision is from People of the Philippines v. ZZZ (G.R. No. 266706, 26 June 2024).