Victims don’t need to prove resistance in rape cases —SC

The Supreme Court (SC) has ruled that victims don’t need to prove resistance in cases of rape committed by force, threat, or intimidation.

A decision of the high court's Third Division found the accused guilty of raping his daughter multiple times since she was nine years old until she reached 16.

In upholding the conviction of the accused, the SC resolved "whether resistance is an element of rape."

Article 266-A of the Revised Penal Code 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."

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 in a news release.

"The right of women to autonomy and bodily integrity should be recognized and respected. 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," it added

The SC pointed out that requiring "proof of resistance" sets aside 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."

The Court added that in many instances of rape, the offender is someone the victim knows, such as in incestuous rape.

The court said that a child cannot be expected to resist her parent’s abuse in such cases. 

“A child simply cannot be expected to resist her own father's abuse. The father-assailant's dominance over the child-victim is complete in cases like this,” the 25-page decision read. “Not only is the father physically superior as a grown male adult compared to a physically immature child, he also asserts moral authority over the child.” 

“Rape is perhaps the only crime where the trial often focuses on the conduct of the victim instead of that of the accused. The need to prove lack of consent often becomes a question of the victim’s behavior, her history, and her conduct before, during, and after the rape as implying that some women can be ‘bad enough’ to be raped while others, because of their background, choices, and conduct, are simply lying when they claim that they were raped. It is time to strike down such uninformed and ignorant views,” the high court said.

In a decision dated April 2014, the SC found that sexual intercourse, if not consensual, is rape even within marriage.

The ruling also pointed out that “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.” —LDF, GMA Integrated News