People v Jumawan; G.R. No. 187495; April 21, 2014; Reyes, J.

FACTS:

Accused Edgar Jumawan and his wife KKK were married and had 4 children. KKK filed a complaint that accused raped her after he boxed her for refusing to have sex with him. Accused and KKK had a business but it is evident according to their daughters that it was KKK who really managed the business. There was one incident before that the accused would to sexual ambush causing pain to KKK. When KKK and accused were in their room, KKK slept on the cot instead of the bed where accused was lying. KKK said that she does not want because she has stomach ache due to a forthcoming menstruation. However, accused lifted the cot and threw it against the wall causing KKK to fall. When KKK transferred to the bed, accused was persistent with his sexual urges but KKK kept on resisting. Accused forced her to stretch her leg and penetrate. KKK was shouting to protest against accused. This was heard by their children. The children knocked on their parents’ door, but accused keep on telling them not to interfere. When children had a chance to get inside the room, they asked why their mother was crying and her panties were torn. When the children and KKK tried to get out of the room, accused prevented them. When they were able to get out, KKK told the children that their father was a beast and forced her to have sex with her.

The next night, accused once again attempted to carry KKK. He tore her shorts. MMM interfered this time but it did not pacify the accused. Accused once again raped her and went out of the room laughing uttering that KKK deserved it because she is a flirt. The children went to their room upon witnessing that she was again crying.

The accused, in his defense, said he was peeling corn during the alleged assault. He said he left as he needed to go to MMM’s graduation. Equia, the spouses’ driver, attested the claims of the accused. KKK wanted to cover up an extra-marital affair with a worker. KKK had 10 paramours. An altercation happened to them when KKK hit OOO at the head causing it to bleed.

ISSUE:

Whether or not accused could invoke sexual community by virtue of marriage to be acquitted.

RULING:

No.

The evolution of rape is traced from the practices of bride capture and stealing an heiress. Rape laws were intended not to redress violation of the woman’s chastity but to punish the act of obtaining an heiress and force her to marry, or to protect a man's valuable interest in his wife's chastity or her daughter's virginity. During the 6th century, a woman is considered as a property of his father until she marries. From 11th to 16th century, a woman would lose her identity upon marriage that she even is denied of political rights. A husband had the right to chastise his wife and beat her if she misbehaved, allowing him to bring order within the family. In the 17th century, marital exemption rule where a husband cannot be guilty of rape upon his lawful wife because in their marriage, the wife had given herself up to her husband which she cannot retract. This gives legal immunity to a man who forcibly sexually assaults his wife. This was abandoned as marital exemption was unconstitutional, in New York.

Before 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. In 1981, the Philippines joined 180 countries in ratifying the United Nations Convention on the Elimination of all Forms of Discrimination Against Women (UNCEDAW) promoting equality between men and women.

Art 266-C of RPC provides the provision when the legal husband is the offender in rape cases. It is within the explicit intent of the lawmakers to outlaw marital rape.

The accused claims that there should be a different view on his case since sexual community is a mutual right and obligation. This fails because irrevocable implied consent theory had been superseded by equal rights between men and women. This refutes the archaic notion that marital rape cannot exist due to the husband having proprietary rights over his wife’s body. Clearly, it is now acknowledged that rape, as a form of sexual violence, exists within marriage. husband who has sexual intercourse with his wife is not merely using a property, he is fulfilling a marital consortium with a fellow human being with dignity equal to that he accords himself. He cannot be permitted to violate this dignity by coercing her to engage in a sexual act without her full and free consent.

Surely, the Philippines cannot renege on its international commitments and accommodate conservative yet irrational notions on marital activities that have lost their relevance in a progressive society. Sexual intimacy between a husband and wife excludes cruelty and coercion. Besides, a husband who feels aggrieved by his indifferent or uninterested wife's absolute refusal to engage in sexual intimacy may legally seek the court's intervention to declare her psychologically incapacitated to fulfill an essential marital obligation. But he cannot and should not demand sexual intimacy from her coercively or violently. As above discussed, 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.

Lastly, the human rights of women include their right to have control over and decide freely and responsibly on matters related to their sexuality, including sexual and reproductive health, free of coercion, discrimination and violence. Women do not divest themselves of such right by contracting marriage for the simple reason that human rights are inalienable.

The evidence of the prosecution was corroborated by evidence and credible witnesses who gave equally credible testimonies. The records also show that there was an employment of force and intimidation showing moral authority over his wife.

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. Contrary to the accused-appellant's allusions, the absence of blood traces in KKK's panties or the lack of a medical certificate do not negate rape. 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.

Failure to immediately report to the police authorities, if satisfactorily explained, is not fatal to the

credibility of a witness. The testimonies of KKK and her daughters cannot be discredited merely because they failed to report the rape incidents to the police authorities or that KKK belatedly 􀀶led the rape charges. Delay or vacillation by the victims in reporting sexual assaults does not necessarily impair their credibility if such delay is satisfactorily explained. In addition, fear of reprisal thru social humiliation which is the common factor that deter rape victims from reporting the crime to the authorities is more cumbersome in marital rape cases. This is in view of the popular yet outdated belief that it is the wife's absolute obligation to submit to her husband's carnal desires. A husband raping his own wife is often dismissed as a peculiar occurrence or trivialized as simple domestic trouble.

Alibi is one of the weakest defenses not only because it is inherently frail and unreliable, but also because it is easy to fabricate and difficult to check or rebut. It cannot prevail over the positive identification of the accused by eyewitnesses who had no improper motive to testify falsely. For the defense of alibi to prosper, the accused must prove not only that he was at some other place at the time of the commission of the crime, but also that it was physically impossible for him to be at the locus delicti or within its immediate vicinity. Physical impossibility refers not only to the geographical distance between the place where the accused was and the place where the crime was committed when the crime transpired, but more importantly, the facility of access between the two places.