It is not required to prove that a victim resisted in cases of rape committed by force, threat, or intimidation, according to the Supreme Court (SC).
In the case of People vs. ZZZ, the SC’s Third Division held it was 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.
“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 Court said.
In the said Decision penned by Associate Justice Maria Filomena D. Singh, the High Tribunal affirmed the conviction of ZZZ for raping his daughter, AAA. ZZZ was charged with the rape and sexual abuse of AAA multiple times from when she was nine years old until she was 16.
Under Article 266-A of the Revised Penal Code, 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.
Previous decisions stating that a woman cannot claim to be a rape victim unless she resisted is now abandoned with the current doctrine.
The Court clarified these pronouncements also tend to reinforce misguided stereotypes that perpetuate gender bias and insensitivity, adding the right of women to autonomy and bodily integrity should be recognized and respected.
