People vs. Jumawan

Marital Rape

G.R. No. 187495 April 21, 2014

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee,

vs.
EDGAR JUMAWAN
Facts:
The victim, KKK, was married to her husband Edgar. They had four children. During their
marriage, they started businesses in which they had acquired some properties. KKK was enthusiastic with
their businesses while Edgar seldom helped in managing it. KKK claimed that they started to have
problems when her husband wanted her to stay at home, because he believe that women should stay at
home and be good at bed. He also started to be brutal in bed wherein she would find their sexual
intercourse painful. Occupied by her desire to give her children a comfortable life, and financial problems
faced by the businesses, KKK refused to heed on her husband’s demand. As narrated by KKK, two
incidents occurred were Edgar vehemently forced her to have sex despite being unwell. Their two
daughters were aware of what happened. She then filed two complaints of rape against her husband.
Edgar was then arrested.
Edgar denied the allegations. He claimed that on the dates KKK alleged she was raped, he was
at Bukidnon because he drove their truck to deliver their products and that they met an accident which
caused the truck to be towed. His testimony was corroborated by their driver Ryle. Edgar claimed that the
rape charges were fabricated to take revenge on him because he took over the management of their
businesses when she failed to account their bank deposits and business earnings. Her failure to
immediately report to the police also belies her rape allegations. Further, Edgar alleged that it was made
to cover her extra-marital affairs, because KKK have more than 10 paramours. Lastly, Edgar also claims
that consent to copulation is presumed between cohabiting husband and wife unless the contrary is
proved.
RTC convicted Edgar of the charges against him. On appeal, CA affirmed the decision of RTC.
Hence, this petition. One of the defenses raised by Edgar is that husband and wife have mutual
obligations of and right to sexual intercourse, thus, a convincing physical evidence or manifestations of
the alleged force and intimidation must be shown.
Issue:
Whether or not KKK was raped by her husband.
Held:
Yes. The accused committed marital rape.
The Court discussed the evolution of rape in the Philippines. During the 11th to 16th century, if a
man raped an unmarried virgin, he was guilty of stealing her father's property and if a man raped his wife,
he was merely using his property. A woman lost her identity upon marriage and the law denied her
political power and status under the feudal doctrine of coverture. A husband had the right to chastise his
wife and beat her if she misbehaved, allowing him to bring order within the family. In 17th century, Sir
Matthew Hale, a Chief Justice in England, held that a 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. It gives legal immunity to a man who
forcibly sexually assaults his wife, an act which would be rape if committed against a woman not his wife.
USA applied this rule in deciding cases, and was even codified. After long years of women battling the
said rule, the Court of Appeals in New York abandoned the said rule, on the ground that it is
unconstitutional and lacks rational basis on distinguishing marital rape and non-marital rape. In 1993, the
50 States of USA made marital rape as a crime.
In Philippines, no documented case on marital rape has ever reached the Court until now. In
1981, the Philippines joined 180 countries in ratifying the United Nations Convention on the Elimination of
all Forms of Discrimination Against Women (UN-CEDAW). As compliance, gender equality was enshrined
in the 1987 Constitution. 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.
The Court ruled against the accused. A woman is no longer the chattel-antiquated practices
labeled her to be. A 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. He cannot be permitted to
violate this dignity by coercing her to engage in a sexual act without her full and free consent. 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.
The Court finds the evidence of the prosecution was based on a credible testimony of a credible
witness. KKK and her testimony were both credible and spontaneous. 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. The Court
did not give credence to the accused'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. 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 filed the rape charges. At that time, KKK and her daughters were not aware that a husband
forcing his wife to submit to sexual intercourse is considered rape. Lastly, Edgar’s defense was weak and
has a lot of loop holes. Therefore, the Court finds Edgar guilty of marital rape and was sentenced to suffer
penalty of reclusion perpetua for each count of rape and a fine.

People vs. Jumawan

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

People vs. Jumawan

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

People vs. Jumawan

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Marital Rape

G.R. No. 187495 April 21, 2014

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee,

Whether or not KKK was raped by her husband.

Yes. The accused committed marital rape.

You might also like