SC in 2014 ruling: Husbands have no right over wives' bodies

As politicians and groups weigh in on the issue of marital rape, GMA News Online looked back on a landmark decision by the Supreme Court (SC) in 2014 that found that sexual intercourse, if not consensual, is rape even within marriage.

In its decision dated April 2014, the Supreme Court First Division stressed that a husband does not own his wife’s body by reason of marriage.

“By marrying, she does not divest herself of the human right to an exclusive autonomy over her body and thus, she can lawfully opt to give or withhold her consent to marital coitus,” the SC said.

“A husband aggrieved by his wife’s unremitting refusal to engage in sexual intercourse cannot resort to felonious force or coercion to make her yield,” it added.

The SC cited Section 266-A of the Revised Penal Code (RPC), as amended by Republic Act (RA) 8353 or the Anti-Rape Law of 1997.

The article states that rape is committed by a man who shall have carnal knowledge of a woman through force, threat, or intimidation; when the offended party is deprived of reason or otherwise unconscious; by means of fraudulent machination or grave abuse of authority; and when the offended party is under 12 years of age or is demented, even though non of the other circumstances are present. 

Senate discussion

Last week, family lawyer and women’s rights advocate Lorna Kapunan said rape can still be applied to married couples.

At the hearing of the Senate Committee on Public Information and Mass Media on the allegation of sexual harassment in the media industry, Senator Robin Padilla asked Kapunan if the supposed obligation of wives to their husbands no longer applies. 

Kapunan, however, maintained that "no means no."

“Pag sinabing no, no means no. (It) applies to both genders. Hindi siya pwede iforce ng asawa,” Kapunan replied.

(If they say no, no means no. It applies to both genders. They cannot force their spouse)

Padilla then asked what solutions can be done to satisfy the spouse’s urges and if it justifies cheating, to which Kapunan replied that it is a psychosocial issue and not a legal issue.

“Out of ano lang po, urge. Nandyan asawa mo to serve you, ayaw niya. Ano para di ako mareklamo ng asawa ko? Anong pwede kong sabihin sa kanya?” Padilla said.

(It’s just out of urge. Their spouse is there to serve them but they refuse to do so. What should I do so that my spouse will not file a complaint against me? What should I say to her?)

In reply, Kapunan advised, “Counseling po ang kailangan. Magdasal na lang kayo.”

(What is needed is counseling. You should just pray.)

Following the flak his statements and questions drew online, Padilla later issued an apology to those offended by some of his statements. He also underscored that he does not condone abuse within the bounds of marriage.

The SC case

Meanwhile, the Supreme Court decision stemmed from the automatic review of a Court of Appeals (CA) ruling, which affirmed the judgment of a regional trial court (RTC) to convict a man of two counts of rape.

The case was filed by the man’s wife, KKK, for raping her in October 1998. 

The RTC sentenced him to reclusion perpetua or up to 40 years of imprisonment for each count and ordered him to pay the complainant P50,000 in each case as moral damages, P75,000 in each case as indemnity, and P50,000 as exemplary damages. This totals to P300,000.

According to the SC, the accused and "KKK" were married in October 1975. Since then, they raised four children and put up several businesses.

Court records state that though conjugal intimacy between them was previously fulfilling, the husband started being brutal in bed in 1997.

In 1999, the couple started quarreling as the husband would complain that she failed to attend to him. KKK was preoccupied with their financial problems and her husband wanted her to stay in the house because a “woman must stay in the house and [be] only good in bed.”

On October 16, 1998, KKK chose to sleep on a cot near their marital bed. This angered her husband, who questioned her and ordered her to transfer to bed.

KKK insisted on staying on the cot and explained that she had a headache and abdominal pain due to her coming menstruation.

However, the accused lifted the cot and threw it against the wall causing KKK to fall on the floor. KKK then transferred to the bed. 

He later expressed his desire to copulate with her, but KKK declined and reiterated that she was not feeling well.

The accused, however, again asserted his sexual yearning and KKK attempted to resist. When he penetrated her, KKK continued to protest and told him to stop as she was not feeling well. 

The following day, KKK was again raped by her husband when she refused to leave their children’s bedroom.

He attempted to carry her out of her room. When she defied him, he grabbed her short pants, causing them to tear.

One of their children interfered, telling him to stop as they were right there.

However, the accused said that he could have sex with their mother even in front of them as he was the head of the family. He then ordered his children out of the room. 

Inside the room, KKK again told the accused that she could not have sex as her body was aching. Despite this, he forced himself upon her.

Ruling

For its part, the SC affirmed the ruling of the CA and RTC and found the husband guilty of two counts of rape.

The High Court sentenced him to suffer the penalty of reclusion perpetua or up to 40 years of imprisonment for each count, without eligibility for parole. 

It sustained the moral damages awarded in P50,000,

The Court, however, lowered the fine for civil indemnity to P50,000 as well as the exemplary damages to P30,000.

“The award of damages shall earn legal interest at the rate of six percent (6%) per annum from the finality of this judgment until fully paid,” it said.

The court said that it could not give credence to the accused’s argument that KKK should have hit him if she was resisting.

“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,” it said.

Aside from this, it said that failure to immediately report to the police authorities is not fatal to the credibility of a witness if it is satisfactorily explained.

The testimonies of KKK and her daughter cannot be discredited merely because they failed to report the rape incidents to the police authorities or that KKK belatedly filed the rape charges,” the Court said.

“Delay or vacillation by the victims in reporting sexual assaults does not necessarily impair their credibility if such delay is satisfactorily explained,” it added.

According to the SC, an individual can seek aid from Family Courts on whether their spouse’s refusal constitutes psychological incapacity that may justify an annulment.

Meanwhile, the Court said that safeguards are in place to scrutinize fabricated or false marital rape complaints.—With GMAIN Research/LDF, GMA Integrated News