SC: Rape committed by force, threat, or intimidation doesn't need proof of resistance
The Supreme Court (SC) said cases of rape committed by force, threat, or intimidation don't need proof that the victim resisted.
According to a press release from the SC website, Associate Justice Maria Filomena Singh affirmed the conviction of a father who had raped his daughter.
The father was charged with rape and sexual abuse of his daughter multiple times when she was 9 to 16 years old, from 2009 to 2015.
The Regional Trial Court found him guilty, and the Court of Appeals (CA) affirmed his conviction, leading to the present appeal.
The SC cited Article 266-A of the Revised Penal Code, which states 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 Republic Act No. 11648 increased the age for determining the commission of statutory rape to under 16.)
The high court said it's enough that force, threat, or intimidation existed and was strong enough to prevent the victims from asserting their will—determined from their perspective.
Previous decisions stating a woman cannot claim to be a rape victim unless she resisted are contrary to current doctrine, the SC said.
"These pronouncements also tend to reinforce misguided stereotypes that perpetuate gender bias and insensitivity," the SC said. "The right of women to autonomy and bodily integrity should be recognized and respected."
It pointed out that such a belief suggests that the woman consented to the rape, and 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 court said.
Requiring proof of resistance, according to the SC, 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.
The SC noted that in a significant number of rape cases, the offender is known to the victim. In cases of incestuous rape, the child may face additional barriers to reporting due to complex familial relationships and power dynamics.
"Thus, when the offender is the father and the victim is his minor child," it said, "moral ascendancy or influence replaces the element of violence or intimidation."