Photo from Pexels | RDNE Stock project
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 of People of the Philippines vs. ZZZ, G.R. No. 266706, June 26, 2024, the Supreme Court reiterated the well-settled principle that proof of resistance by the victim is not required in rape cases.
In rape cases committed through force, threat, or intimidation, it is sufficient that such force, threat, or intimidation existed and was compelling enough to prevent a woman from asserting her will.
The existence of such force, threat, or intimidation is determined from the perspective of the victim given, among other considerations, the circumstances of the rape, her relationship to the assailant, her state of mind, and the disparity in the assailant and the victim’s physical strength.
With respect specifically to incestuous rape, where the assailant is the father and the victim is his minor child, as in this case, moral ascendancy or influence supplants the element of violence or intimidation.
A child simply cannot be expected to resist her own father’s abuse. The father-assailant’s dominance over the child-victim is complete in cases like this.
Under Article 266-A of Republic Act (RA) No.8353 as amended by RA No. 11648 or the Anti-Rape Law, rape is committed:
1) By a man who shall have carnal knowledge of a woman under any of the following circumstances:
a) Through force, threat, or intimidation;
b) When the offended party is deprived of reason or otherwise unconscious;
c) By means of fraudulent machination or grave abuse of authority; and
d) When the offended party is under twelve (16) years of age or is demented, even though none of the circumstances mentioned above be present.
2) By any person who, under any of the circumstances mentioned in paragraph 1 hereof, shall commit an act of sexual assault by inserting his penis into another person’s mouth or anal orifice, or any instrument or object, into the genital or anal orifice of another person.
In the case of People of the Philippines vs. ZZZ, G.R. No. 266706, June 26, 2024, the Supreme Court reiterated the well-settled principle that proof of resistance by the victim is not required in rape cases.
Facts:
ZZZ started molesting AAA when she was just nine (9) years old. He also physically abused AAA’s siblings and his wife. The RTC convicted ZZZ of two counts of Rape under Article 266-A paragraph 1(a), one count of Rape by Sexual Assault under Article 266-A, paragraph 2 of the RPC; and four counts of Slight Physical Injuries under Article 266 of the RPC. On appeal, the Court of Appeals affirmed the Joint Decision of the RTC.
In his Appellant’s Brief, ZZZ raised that AAA’s testimony shows that she did not resist the alleged rape. It goes against the grain of human experience for a woman “who has been robbed of her honor and chastity not to seize an opportunity to escape from the clutches of her malefactor.”
Issue:
Whether or not proof of resistance is required in rape cases.
Ruling:
The Supreme Court held that proof of resistance is not required. In rape cases committed through force, threat, or intimidation, it is sufficient that such force, threat, or intimidation existed and was compelling enough to prevent a woman from asserting her will.
The existence of such force, threat, or intimidation is determined from the perspective of the victim given, among other considerations, the circumstances of the rape, her relationship to the assailant, her state of mind, and the disparity in the assailant and the victim’s physical strength.
WIth respect specifically to incestuous rape, where the assailant is the father and the victim is his minor child, as in this case, moral ascendancy or influence supplants the element of violence or intimidation.
A child simply cannot be expected to resist her own father’s abuse. The father-assailant’s dominance over the child-victim is complete in cases like this. Not only is the father physically superior as a grown male adult compared to a physically immature child, he also asserts moral authority over the child.
RELATED ARTICLES:
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.