MANILA, Philippines — For rape cases committed by force, threat, or intimidation, victims are not required to show proof of resistance against the act, the Supreme Court said.
In the decision of the high court promulgated on June 26, 2024, it affirmed the conviction of a man who repeatedly raped and abused his daughter and resolved the issue of whether resistance is an element of the crime of rape.
According to the Supreme Court for cases of rape, it is enough that “force, threat, or intimidation existed and was strong enough to prevent the victims from asserting their will.”
The case
The accused is a man accused of committing violations of rape by sexual assault, according to the Revised Penal Code; Acts of Lasciviousness under the Special Protection of Children Against Abuse and Discrimination Act and child abuse under the Anti-Violence Against Women and Children Act.
The accused, ZZZ, repeatedly raped and assaulted one of his daughters who is a minor.
He also physically assaulted all four of his daughters.
ZZZ argued that he rules with an “iron hand” to his daughters to discipline them and denied the rape allegations.
To cast doubt on the allegations of sexual assault, the accused cited former Supreme Court rulings to which he argued that there should be a resistance that is “manifested and tenacious.”
Despite his argument, the Supreme Court found the accused guilty of sexual assault, qualified rape and slight physical injuries, and was ordered to be imprisoned for 40 years.
SUPREME COURT RULING
The Supreme Court, through Associate Justice Filomena Singh, struck down ZZZ’s argument.
The high tribunal, citing jurisprudence, said that such rape cases should be viewed in the “light of the victim’s perception and judgment” when the crime was committed.
It added that requiring proof of resistance from victim is also judging a victim’s behavior by male standards.
“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 Supreme Court's decision read.
“Pronouncements like this are not only contrary to the prevailing doctrine, they also tend to reinforce misguided stereotypes that perpetuate gender bias and insensitivity,” it added.
Resistance of victims might also worsen the impacts of rape, according to the high tribunal, citing that perpetrators of these acts are usually known by the victims. The Supreme Court added that these victims are already subject to other abuses.
“The resistance requirement thus compels a woman to risk her life to protect her ‘virtue, honor, and chastity’ as if a woman should believe that life is not worth living if she was abused without a fight,” its ruling read.
“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 Supreme Court added