SC expounds ruling on proof of resistance in rape cases
MANILA, Philippines — Victims of rape do not need to prove that they resisted if the act was committed by force, threat, or intimidation, the Supreme Court (SC) has ruled.
In a statement on Thursday, the SC cited a June 2024 decision penned by Associate Justice Maria Filomena D. Singh where a father was found guilty of raping his daughter from when she was nine years old until she was sixteen years old.
In upholding its conviction, the high court cited Article 266-A of the Revised Penal Code, which said that 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.”
“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 victims from asserting their will, determined from the victims’ perspective,” the SC said.
Article continues after this advertisementMeanwhile, it clarified its previous decisions, saying that a woman could not claim to be a rape victim unless she resisted.
Article continues after this advertisementThe high court noted that these are contrary to current doctrine and tend to reinforce misguided stereotypes of gender bias and insensitivity.
“The belief that if a woman does not resist, then she consents to the rape is unacceptable in any civilized society. It presumes that men are entitled to free access to a woman’s body at any given time and place,” the SC said.
“Requiring proof of resistance also ignores the fact that women, as traditional victims of rape, have been conditioned to live for the male gaze and to believe that it is impolite to be assertive. It also dismisses the fact that resisting a man’s sexual advances can harm a woman or get her killed,” it added.
Furthermore, the SC said that, in many instances of rape, the offender was someone close to or known to the victim.
In such cases, the high court stressed that a child could not be expected to resist her own father’s abuse, not just because of physical superiority but also due to the moral authority he asserts over his child.
“Thus, when the offender is the father and the victim is his minor child, moral ascendancy or influence replaces the element of violence or intimidation,” it said.
