PEOPLE vs.

JUMAWAL
G.R. No. 187495 | April 21, 2014

TICKLER: Marital Rape

According to the prosecution, as evidenced by KKK and their daughters, Conjugal intimacy did not really cause
marital problems between KKK and the accused-appellant. It was, in fact, both frequent and fulfilling. However,
eventually, he started to be brutal in bed. His abridged method of lovemaking was physically painful for her so she
would refuse to have sex with him but he would threaten her. KKK and the accused-appellant started quarrelling
usually upon his complaint that she failed to attend to him. She was preoccupied with financial problems in their
businesses and a bank loan. He wanted KKK to stay at home because "a woman must stay in the house and only
good in bed, which she disobeyed.

One night, KKK slept in their shared room but stayed in a cot and not on their bed. Despite Jumawan’s order for
her to transfer on their bed, she refused because she explained that was sick. Once she then transferred to the
bed. Jumawan then laid beside her wife and tapped her legs, indicating his desire to have sex, while KK politely
declined. Jumawan then asserted his sexual yearning but KKK tried to resist by holding on to her panties, causing
Jumawan to forcefully tear her panties. The accused-appellant started penetrating her. She tried to wrestle him
away but failed. As he was carrying out his carnal desires, KKK continued to protest, which was heard by MMM
(one of their daughters).

MMM then went to her parent’s room, and saw her mother crying and her panties torn. MMM helped her mother
get out of the master’s bedroom, which she succeeded, and led her mother to their bedroom, where KKK told
them what happened. The next day, KKK slept in their children’s room, and as a result, Jumawan got mad, and
despite his children’s presence, forcefully brought KKK in their room, and forcefully had sex with her.

Jumawan denied all allegations, and claimed that on the said dates of the rape incident, he was not at home. He
was in Bukidnon peeling corn. His defense was corroborated by the spouses’ driver stating that Jumawan was
within the vicinity of the rice mill's loading area in Dangcagan, Bukidnon, cleaning a pick-up truck. According to
him, KKK fabricated the rape charges as her revenge because he took over their businesses as well as the
possession of their pick-up truck, as well to cover up her extra marital affairs.

RTC: Guilty beyond reasonable doubt of rape in the 2 informations.

CA: The CA affirmed in toto. (In addition, 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.)
ISSUE:
W/N Jumawan can be liable for rape charges against him.

HELD:
YES. Although common law countries does not consider marital rape as rape because the husband cannot be guilty
of a rape committed by himself upon his lawful wife, for by their mutual matrimonial consent and contract the wife
hath given up herself in this kind unto her husband, which she cannot retract.The SC We finds no rational basis for
distinguishing between marital rape and nonmarital rape. In our laws, In case it is the legal husband who is the
offender, the subsequent forgiveness by the wife as the offended party shall extinguish the criminal action or the
penalty, except when the marriage is void. 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.

Further, as deducible from the records of the deliberations of the 10th Congress, the consensus of our lawmakers
was clearly to include and penalize marital rape under the general definition of 'rape. 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.

The Court finds the evidence presented by the prosecution as genuine and credible. KKK vividly recounted what
happened. She remained consistent and straightforward with what happened. 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.

The definition of rape in Section 1 of R.A. No. 8353 includes marital rape. The single definition 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.

The posture advanced by the accused-appellant arbitrarily discriminates against married rape victims over
unmarried rape victims because it withholds from married women raped by their husbands the penal redress
equally granted by law to all rape victims.

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. Contrary to the accused-appellant's asseverations, KKK's consent was wrestled from
her through force and intimidation both of which were established beyond moral certainty by the prosecution
through the pertinent testimony. Further, 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. KKK’s and MMM’s failure to report to the police does not also lessen
their credibility as witnesses. Delay or vacillation by the victims in reporting sexual assaults does not necessarily
impair their credibility if such delay is satisfactorily explained.

Jumawan’s alibi cannot also be given weight. Being alibi as the weakest form of defense, positive identification will
prevail in any case. Between the accused-appellant's alibi and denial, and the positive identification and credible
testimony of the victim, and her two daughters, the Court must give weight to the latter, especially in the absence
of ill motive on their part to falsely testify against the accused-appellant.
 PEOPLE vs. AMARELA & RACHO
G.R. No. 225642-43 | January 17, 2018
TICKLER: Rape; “Women’s Honor” Doctrine
FACTS:
AAA is a housekeeper and a resident of Davao City. One night, while she was watching a beauty pageant held in
the basketball court, she had the to urinate so she went to the comfort room near the basketball court, but failed
to reach the same because Juvy Amarela (Amarela) was already waiting for her who suddenly pulled her under the
stage in the day care center. He punched her and tried to resist, but failed. Amarela went on top of her and had sex
with her until 3 men heard AAA’s cries and rescued her causing Amarela to run away. The 3 men led AAA in a hut
but had bad intentions against her, so when she had a chance, she ran away. So she fled and hid in a neighboring
house. She was brought to the Racho residence and herein accused Runard Racho (Racho) was told by his mother
to bring her to her aunt’s house instead.

AAA then said that [Racho] brought her to a shanty against her will. She was told to lie down. When she refused,
[Racho] boxed her. She resisted by kicking him but he succeeded in undressing her. He, then, undressed himself
and placed himself on top of [AAA]. [Racho] then had sex with her. After consummating the act, [Racho] left her.
So [AAA] went home alone. The following morning, she decided to leave home. Her mother was surprised at her
decision until eventually, [AAA] told her mother about what happened to her. She told her [eldest] brother first
who got very angry. They reported the matter to the police and eventually [Amarela] and [Racho] were arrested.

Amarela denied the allegations stating that he met AAA in the afternoon asking him if he knows Domondon whom
she said was her boyfriend. In the night, he had a drinking spree with his friend, and as a result, he got dizzy and
was brought to the house of his elder brother. On the other hand, Racho admitted that he went with AAA to bring
her home but denied raping her. When Racho was about to bring AAA home, she refused because according to
her, her aunt would just scold her. So she asked to be brought home in their house which is far away. Since it was
far, Racho did not go with her and he went home. When asked about the charge of rape against him, Racho said he
could not have done that because his hand is impaired while showing a long scar on his left arm because of a
hacking incident. Racho’s defences were supported by his mother.

RTC: Gulity beyond reasonable doubt of rape (both Amarela and Racho)
CA: The CA affirmed in toto. (Positive identification prevails over denial, a negative defense that is inherently
unreliable. We have no reason to doubt [AAA's] assertions positively establishing the identities of the two accused-
appellants. We find the guilt of each of the accused-appellants to have been proven beyond reasonable doubt.)
ISSUE: W/N Amarela and Racho can be liable for the rape of AAA
HELD:
NO. RTC and CA ruling reversed and set aside. Accused-appellants Juvy D. Amarela and Junard G. Racho
are ACQUITTED of the charge of rape on the ground of reasonable doubt.

In order for the court to affirm a conviction for rape, we must believe beyond reasonable doubt the version of
events narrated by the victim.

It has often been noted that if there is an inconsistency between the affidavit and the testimony of a witness, the
latter should be given more weight since affidavits are usually incomplete and inadequate. We usually brush aside
these inconsistencies since they are trivial and do not impair the credibility of the rape victim. In this case,
however, the version in AAA’s affidavit-complaint is remotely different from her court testimony. At the first
instance, AAA claims that she was pulled away from the vicinity of the stage; later, in court, she says that she was
on her way to the rest room when she was grabbed. By this alone, we are hesitant to believe AAA’s retraction
because it goes into whether it was even possible for Amarela to abduct AAA against her will. If we were to take
into account AAA’s initial claim that Amarela pulled her away from the vicinity of the stage, people facing the stage
would easily notice that a man was holding a woman against her will. Thus, AAA’s version that she was on her way
to the rest room, instead of being pulled away from the crowd watching the beauty contest, would make it seem
that nobody would notice if AAA was being taken away against her will. Although the SC cannot acquit Amarela
solely based on an inconsistency, this instance already puts AAA’s credibility in question.

The SC also finds it dubious how AAA was able to identify Amarela considering that the whole incident allegedly
happened in a dark place. In fact, she had testified that the place was not illuminated and that she did not see
Amarela’s face. The identity of the offender, like the crime itself, must be established by proof beyond reasonable
doubt.

As per Racho’s case, if the denial and alibi are readily available, Racho could have easily raised these defenses and
denied that AAA ever came to the house. His mother could have likewise covered up this story, but she did not and
confirmed that Racho was with AAA that night. If indeed Racho raped AAA that night, the best defense available
for him was alibi which he thought he did not have to raise, given that he was telling the truth when he left AAA by
herself to go home. To our mind, these are badges of truth which persuade us that Racho might be telling the
truth.

The prosecution in this case miserably failed to present a clear story of what transpired. Whether AAA’s ill-fated
story is true or not, by seeking relief for an alleged crime, the prosecution must do its part to convince the court
that the accused is guilty. The court cannot ascertain what happened based on the lone testimony of AAA. It
should have been the prosecution’s duty to properly evaluate the evidence if it had enough to convict Amarela or
Racho.

Re: Woman’s Honor Dotrine

Rape cases are solely decided based on the credibility of the testimony of the private complainant. In doing so, we
have hinged on the impression that no young Filipina of decent repute would publicly admit that she has been
sexually abused, unless that is the truth, for it is her natural instinct to protect her honor. However, this
misconception, particularly in this day and age, not only puts the accused at an unfair disadvantage, but creates a
travesty of justice.

The "women's honor" doctrine surfaced in our jurisprudence sometime in 1960. In the case of People v. Tana. In
the said case, it was ruled that it is a well-known fact that women, especially Filipinos, would not admit that they
have been abused unless that abuse had actually happened, in order to protect their honor.

And while the factual setting back then would have been appropriate to say it is natural for a woman to be
reluctant in disclosing a sexual assault; today, we simply cannot be stuck to the Maria Clara stereotype of a demure
and reserved Filipino woman. We, should stay away from such mindset and accept the realities of a woman’s
dynamic role in society today; she who has over the years transformed into a strong and confidently intelligent and
beautiful person, willing to fight for her rights.

Although the court puts premium on the factual findings of the trial court, especially when they are affirmed by the
appellate court, this rule is not absolute and admits exceptions, such as when some facts or circumstances of
weight and substance have been overlooked, misapprehended, and misinterpreted. In the case at bar, the court is
not persuaded to the testimony of AAA as there were consistencies in her affidavit and court testimony (as
mentioned above).