Case Digest: People v. Jumawan, G.R. No. 187495, 21 April 2014

    ⚠️Trigger Warning: Rape ⚠️

      Marital Rape | Criminal Law

Facts:

Edgar Jumawan and his wife, KKK, were married on October 18, 1975. They Iived together since then and raised their four (4) children as they put up several businesses over the years.

KKK executed a Complaint-Affidavit, alleging that her husband, the accused-appellant, raped her at 3 :00 a.m. at their residence and that the accused-appellant boxed her shoulder for refusing to have sex with him. Two Informations for Violation of R.A. 8353, the Anti-Rape Law of 1997, were filed before the RTC.

The RTC sustained the version proffered by the prosecution by giving greater weight and credence to the spontaneous and straightforward testimonies of the prosecution's witnesses. The trial court also upheld as sincere and genuine the two daughters' testimonies, as it is not natural in our culture for daughters to testify against their own father for a crime such as rape if the same was not truly committed.

The CA explained that physical showing of external injures is not indispensable to prosecute and convict a person for rape; what is necessary is that the victim was forced to have sexual intercourse with the accused. CA noted that the fact that KKK and the accused-appellant are spouses only reinforces the truthfulness of KKK's accusations because no wife in her right mind would accuse her husband of having raped her if it were not true.

RTC & CA: Guilty of two counts Rape, R.A. 8353.

Issue:

WoN the CA gravely erred in finding the accused-appellant guilty beyond reasonable doubt for the crime of rape.

Petitioner argues that the presence of force, threat or intimidation is negated by: 

(a) KKK's voluntary act of going with him to the conjugal bedroom on October 16, 1998; 

(b) KKK's failure to put up resistance or seek help from police authorities; and 

(c) the absence of a medical certificate and of blood traces in KKK's panties.

Held:

Guilty of Rape. R.A. 8353.

A. The marital exemption rule is unconstitutional. 

The notion of an irrevocable implied consent by a married woman to sexual intercourse has been cited most frequently in support of the marital exemption. Any argument based on a supposed consent, however, is untenable. 

Rape is not simply a sexual act to which one party does not consent. Rather, it is a degrading, violent act which violates the bodily integrity of the victim and frequently causes severe, long-lasting physical and psychic harm. To ever imply consent to such an act is irrational and absurd. Other than in the context of rape statutes, marriage has never been viewed as giving a husband the right to coerced intercourse on demand. 

Certainly, then, a marriage license should not be viewed as a license for a husband to forcibly rape his wife with impunity. A married woman has the same right to control her own body as does an unmarried woman. If a husband feels "aggrieved" by his wife's refusal to engage in sexual intercourse, he should seek relief in the courts governing domestic relations, not in "violent or forceful self-help."

The paradigm shift on marital rape in the Philippine jurisdiction is further affirmed by R.A. No. 9262, which regards rape within marriage as a form of sexual violence that may be committed by a man against his wife within or outside the family abode.

One of such measures is R.A. No 8353 insofar as it eradicated the archaic notion that marital rape cannot exist because a husband has absolute proprietary rights over his wife's body and thus her consent to every act of sexual intimacy with him is always obligatory or at least, presumed.

It is now acknowledged that rape, as a form of sexual violence, exists within marriage. A man who penetrates her wife without her consent or against her will commits sexual violence upon her, and the Philippines, as a State Party to the CEDA W and its accompanying Declaration, defines and penalizes the act as rape under R.A. No. 8353.

Moreover, to treat marital rape cases differently from non-marital rape cases in terms of the elements that constitute the crime and in the rules for their proof, infringes on the equal protection clause. 

The definition of rape in Section 1 of R.A. No. 8353 pertains to: (a) rape, as traditionally known; (b) sexual assault; and (c) marital rape or that where the victim is the perpetrator's own spouse. The single definition for all three forms of the crime shows that the law does not distinguish between rape committed in wedlock and those committed without a marriage. Hence, the law affords protection to women raped by their husband and those raped by any other man alike.

A marriage license should not be viewed as a license for a husband to forcibly rape his wife with impunity. A married woman has the same right to control her own body, as does an unmarried woman. She can give or withhold her consent to a sexual intercourse with her husband and he cannot unlawfully wrestle such consent from her in case she refuses.

Court observed that KKK and her testimony were both credible and spontaneous. Hailed to the witness stand on six separate occasions, KKK never wavered neither did her statements vacillate between uncertainty and certitude. She remained consistent, categorical, straightforward, and candid during the rigorous cross-examination and on rebuttal examination, she was able to convincingly explain and debunk the allegations of the defense. She vividly recounted how the accused-appellant forced her to have sex with him despite her refusal.

Entrenched is the rule that in the prosecution of rape cases, the essential element that must be proved is the absence of the victim's consent to the sexual congress.

Under the law, consent is absent when: 

(a) it was wrestled from the victim by force, threat or intimidation, fraudulent machinations or grave abuse of authority; or 

(b) the victim is incapable of giving free and voluntary consent because he/she is deprived of reason or otherwise unconscious or that the offended party is under 12 years of age or is demented.

The fact that KKK voluntarily went with the accused-appellant to their conjugal bedroom cannot be stretched to mean that she consented to the forced sexual intercourse that ensued. The accused-appellant was KKK's husband and hence it was customary for her to sleep in the conjugal bedroom. No consent can be deduced from such act of KKK because at that juncture there were no indications that sexual intercourse was about to take place. 

The issue of consent was still irrelevant since the act for which the same is legally required did not exist yet or at least unclear to the person from whom the consent was desired. The significant point when consent must be given is at that time when it is clear to the victim that her aggressor is soliciting sexual congress. In this case, that point is when the accused-appellant tapped his fingers on her lap, a gesture KKK comprehended to be an invitation for a sexual intercourse, which she refused.

We cannot give credence to the accused-appellant's argument that KKK should have hit him to convey that she was resisting his sexual onslaught. Resistance is not an element of rape and the law does not impose upon the victim the burden to prove resistance much more requires her to raise a specific kind thereof.

Moreover, as an element of rape, force or intimidation need not be irresistible; it may be just enough to bring about the desired result. What is necessary is that the force or intimidation be sufficient to consummate the purpose that the accused had in mind or is of such a degree as to impel the defenseless and hapless victim to bow into submission.

B. It is not the presence or absence of blood on the victim's underwear that determines the fact of rape inasmuch as a medical certificate is dispensable evidence that is not necessary to prove rape. These details do not pertain to the elements that produce the gravamen of the offense that is -sexual intercourse with a woman against her will or without her consent.

The corroborative testimonies of MMM and OOO are worthy of credence. It must be stressed that rape is essentially committed in relative isolation, thus, it is usually only the victim who can testify with regard to the fact of the forced sexual intercourse. Hence, the probative value of MMM and OOO's testimonies rest not on whether they actually witnessed the rape but on whether their declarations were in harmony with KKK's narration of the circumstances, preceding, subsequent to and concurrent with, the rape incidents.

C. Failure to immediately report to the police authorities, if satisfactorily explained, is not fatal to the credibility of a witness. Delay or vacillation by the victims in reporting sexual assaults does not necessarily impair their credibility if such delay is satisfactorily explained. Unfamiliarity with or lack of knowledge of the law criminalizing marital rape, the stigma and public scrutiny that could have befallen KKK and her family had the intervention of police authorities or even the neighbors been sought, are acceptable explanations for the failure or delay in reporting the subject rape incidents.

It must be stressed that in raising the irrevocable implied consent theory as defense, the accused-appellant has essentially admitted the facts of sexual intercourse embodied in the two criminal informations for rape. This admission is inconsistent with the defense of alibi and any discussion thereon will thus be irrelevant.

At any rate, the courts a quo correctly rejected his alibi.

Penalty:

Reclusion perpetua for each count, without eligibility for parole.

PhP50,000.00 as civil indemnity, 

PhP50,000.00 as moral damages and 

PhP30,000.00 as exemplary damages. 

The civil indemnity and damages shall earn interest at 6% per annum.

Notes:

Marital Rape in the Philippines

According to Chief Justice Ramon C. Aquino, a husband may not be guilty of rape under Article 335 of Act No. 3815 but, in case there is legal separation, the husband should be held guilty of rape if he forces his wife to submit to sexual intercourse.

The Legislature then pursued the enactment of laws to propagate gender equality. In 1997, R.A. No. 8353 eradicated the stereotype concept of rape in Article 335 of the RPC. The law reclassified rape as a crime against person and removed it from the ambit of crimes against chastity. More particular to the present case, and perhaps the law's most progressive proviso is the 2nd paragraph of Section 2 thereof recognizing the reality of marital rape and criminalizing its perpetration.

Article 266-C. Effect of Pardon. - The subsequent valid marriage between the offended party shall extinguish the criminal action or the penalty imposed.

In case it is the legal husband who is t he offender, the subsequent forgiveness by the wife as the offended party shall extinguish the criminal action or the penalty: Provided, That the crime shall not be extinguished or the penalty shall not be abated if the marriage is void ab initio.

Read together with Section 1 of the law, which unqualifiedly uses the term "man" in defining rape, it is unmistakable that R.A. No. 8353 penalizes the crime without regard to the rapist's legal relationship with his victim, thus:

Article 266-A. Rape: When And How Committed. - 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 (12) years of age or is demented, even though none of the circumstances mentioned above be present.

x x x

Recit Version:

Facts:  

KKK executed a Complaint-Affidavit, alleging that her husband, Edgar Jumawan, raped her at 3 :00 a.m. at their residence and that the accused-appellant boxed her shoulder for refusing to have sex with him. Two Informations for Violation of R.A. 8353, the Anti-Rape Law of 1997, were filed before the RTC.

Issue:

WoN the CA gravely erred in finding the accused-appellant guilty beyond reasonable doubt for the crime of rape. 

(a) KKK's voluntary act of going with him to the conjugal bedroom (marital exemption rule);

(b) KKK's failure to put up resistance or seek help from police authorities; and 

(c) the absence of a medical certificate and of blood traces in KKK's panties.

Held:

Guilty of Rape. R.A. 8353.

A. The marital exemption rule is unconstitutional. 

Rape is not simply a sexual act to which one party does not consent. Rather, it is a degrading, violent act which violates the bodily integrity of the victim and frequently causes severe, long-lasting physical and psychic harm. To ever imply consent to such an act is irrational and absurd. Other than in the context of rape statutes, marriage has never been viewed as giving a husband the right to coerced intercourse on demand. 

A marriage license should not be viewed as a license for a husband to forcibly rape his wife with impunity. A married woman has the same right to control her own body, as does an unmarried woman. She can give or withhold her consent to a sexual intercourse with her husband and he cannot unlawfully wrestle such consent from her in case she refuses.

Court observed that KKK and her testimony were both credible and spontaneous. Hailed to the witness stand on six separate occasions, KKK vividly recounted how the accused-appellant forced her to have sex with him despite her refusal.

B. Resistance is not an element of rape and the law does not impose upon the victim the burden to prove resistance much more requires her to raise a specific kind thereof.

Moreover, as an element of rape, force or intimidation need not be irresistible; it may be just enough to bring about the desired result. What is necessary is that the force or intimidation be sufficient to consummate the purpose that the accused had in mind or is of such a degree as to impel the defenseless and hapless victim to bow into submission.

C. It is not the presence or absence of blood on the victim's underwear that determines the fact of rape inasmuch as a medical certificate is dispensable evidence that is not necessary to prove rape. These details do not pertain to the elements that produce the gravamen of the offense that is -sexual intercourse with a woman against her will or without her consent.

The corroborative testimonies of MMM and OOO are worthy of credence. Failure to immediately report to the police authorities, if satisfactorily explained, is not fatal to the credibility of a witness.  

It must be stressed that in raising the irrevocable implied consent theory as defense, the accused-appellant has essentially admitted the facts of sexual intercourse embodied in the two criminal informations for rape. This admission is inconsistent with the defense of alibi and any discussion thereon will thus be irrelevant.

At any rate, the courts a quo correctly rejected his alibi.

Penalty:

Reclusion perpetua for each count, without eligibility for parole.

PhP50,000.00 as civil indemnity, 

PhP50,000.00 as moral damages and 

PhP30,000.00 as exemplary damages. 

The civil indemnity and damages shall earn interest at 6% per annum.