People vs. Jumawan PDF

G.R.No.187495.April21,2014.
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiffappellee, vs.

EDGARJUMAWAN,accusedappellant.
Criminal Law; Rape; The law reclassified rape as a crime
against person and removed it from the ambit of crimes against
chastity.In1997,R.A.No.8353eradicatedthestereotypeconcept
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
thelawsmostprogressiveprovisoisthe2ndparagraphofSection2
thereofrecognizingtherealityofmaritalrapeandcriminalizingits
perpetration,viz.:Article266C.Effect of Pardon.Thesubsequent
valid marriage between the offended party shall extinguish the
criminal action or the penalty imposed. In case it is the legal
husband who is the offender,thesubsequentforgivenessbythe
wife as the offended party shall extinguish the criminal action or
the penalty: Provided, That the crime shall not be extinguished or
the penalty shall not be abated if the marriage is void ab initio.
Read together with Section 1 of the law, which unqualifiedly uses
the term man in defining rape, it is unmistakable that R.A. No.
8353penal
*FIRSTDIVISION.
109
VOL.722,APRIL21,2014
109
People vs. Jumawan

izes the crime without regard to the rapists legal relationship with
hisvictim.
Same; Same; Marital Rape; In spite of qualms on tagging the
crime as marital rape due to conservative Filipino impressions on
marriage, the consensus of our lawmakers was clearly to include
and penalize marital rape under the general definition of rape.
The explicit intent to outlaw marital rape is deducible from the
records of the deliberations of the 10th Congress on the laws
progenitors,HouseBillNo.6265andSenateBillNo.650.Inspite
ofqualmsontaggingthecrimeasmaritalrapeduetoconservative
Filipino impressions on marriage, the consensus of our lawmakers
wasclearlytoincludeandpenalizemaritalrapeunderthegeneral
definitionofrape.
Same; Same; Same; 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.TheparadigmshiftonmaritalrapeinthePhilippine
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,viz.:Violence against women and their children refers
to any act or a series of acts committed by any person
against a woman who is his wife, former wife, or against a
woman with whom the person has or had a sexual or dating
relationship, or with whom he has a common child, or against her
child whether legitimate or illegitimate, within or without the
family abode, which result in or is likely to result in physical,
sexual, psychological harm or suffering, or economic abuse
including threats of such acts, battery, assault, coercion,
harassmentorarbitrarydeprivationofliberty.It includes, but is
not limited to, the following acts: A. Physical Violence refers
toactsthatincludebodilyorphysicalharm;B. Sexual violence
refers to an act which is sexual in nature, committed
against a woman or her child. It includes, but is not limited
to: a) rape, sexual harassment, acts of lasciviousness, treating a
womanorherchildasasexobject,makingdemeaningandsexually
suggestive remarks, physically attacking the sexual parts of the
victims body, forcing her/him to watch obscene publications and
indecentshowsorforcingthewomanorherchildtodo
110
110
SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATED
People vs. Jumawan
indecent acts and/or make films thereof, forcing the wife and
mistress/lover to live in the conjugal home or sleep together in the
same room with the abuser; b) acts causing or attempting to cause
thevictimtoengageinanysexualactivitybyforce,threatofforce,
physical or other harm or threat of physical or other harm or
coercion; c) Prostituting the woman or child. Statistical figures
confirm the above characterization. Emotional and other forms of
nonpersonalviolencearethemostcommontypeofspousalviolence
accounting for 23% incidence among evermarried women. One in
seven evermarried women experienced physical violence by their
husbandswhileeightpercent(8%)experiencedsexualviolence.
Same; Same; Same; R.A. No. 8353 eradicated the archaic notion
that marital rape cannot exist because a husband has absolute
proprietary rights over his wifes body and thus her consent to every
act of sexual intimacy with him is always obligatory or at least,
presumed.The Philippines, as State Party to the CEDAW,
recognized that a change in the traditional role of men as well as
theroleofwomeninsocietyandinthefamilyisneededtoachieve
fullequalitybetweenthem.Accordingly,thecountryvowedtotake
all appropriate measures to modify the social and cultural patterns
of conduct of men and women, with a view to achieving the
eliminationofprejudices,customsandallotherpracticeswhichare
basedontheideaoftheinferiorityorthesuperiorityofeitherofthe
sexes or on stereotyped roles for men and women. One of such
measuresisR.A.No.8353insofarasiteradicatedthearchaicnotion
that marital rape cannot exist because a husband has absolute
proprietaryrightsoverhiswifesbodyandthusherconsenttoevery
act of sexual intimacy with him is always obligatory or at least,

presumed. Another important international instrument on gender
equality is the UN Declaration on the Elimination of Violence
Against Women, which was promulgated by the UN General
Assembly subsequent to the CEDAW. The Declaration, in
enumeratingtheformsofgenderbasedviolencethatconstituteacts
of discrimination against women, identified marital rape as a
speciesofsexualviolence.
Same; Same; Same; A man who penetrates her wife without her
consent or against her will commits sexual violence upon her, and
the Philippines, as a State Party to the Convention on the
Elimination of all Forms of Discrimination Against Women
(CEDAW) and its accompanying Declaration, defines and penalizes
the act as rape under
111
111
People vs. Jumawan

R.A. No. 8353.Clearly, it is now acknowledged that rape, as a
form of sexual violence, exists within marriage. A man who
penetratesherwifewithoutherconsentoragainstherwillcommits
sexual violence upon her, and the Philippines, as a State Party to
the CEDAW and its accompanying Declaration, defines and
penalizes the act as rape under R.A. No. 8353. A woman is no
longerthechattelantiquatedpracticeslabeledhertobe.Ahusband
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
sexualactwithoutherfullandfreeconsent.Surely,thePhilippines
cannot renege on its international commitments and accommodate
conservative yet irrational notions on marital activities that have
lost their relevance in a progressive society. It is true that the
FamilyCode,obligatesthespousestoloveoneanotherbutthisrule
sanctionsaffectionandsexualintimacy,asexpressionsoflove,that
are both spontaneous and mutual and not the kind which is
unilaterallyexactedbyforceorcoercion.
Same; Same; Same; The delicate and reverent nature of sexual
intimacy between a husband and wife excludes cruelty and
coercion.The delicate and reverent nature of sexual intimacy
betweenahusbandandwifeexcludescrueltyandcoercion.Sexual
intimacy brings spouses wholeness and oneness. It is a gift and a
participation in the mystery of creation. It is a deep sense of
spiritual communion. It is a function which enlivens the hope of
procreationandensuresthecontinuationoffamilyrelations.Itisan
expressiveinterestineachothersfeelingsatatimeitisneededby
the other and it can go a long way in deepening marital
relationship.Whenitisegoisticallyutilizedtodespoilmaritalunion
inordertoadvanceafeloniousurgeforcoitusbyforce,violenceor
intimidation, the Court will step in to protect its lofty purpose,
vindicate justice and protect our laws and State policies. Besides, a
husband who feels aggrieved by his indifferent or uninterested
wifes absolute refusal to engage in sexual intimacy may legally
seek the courts intervention to declare her psychologically
incapacitated to fulfill an essential marital obligation. But he

cannotandshouldnotdemandsexualintimacyfromhercoercively
orviolently.
112
112
People vs. Jumawan
Same; Same; Same; Equal Protection of the Laws; To treat

marital rape cases differently from nonmarital rape cases in terms of
the elements that constitute the crime and in the rules for their
proof, infringes on the equal protection clause.To treat marital
rape cases differently from nonmarital rape cases in terms of the
elements that constitute the crime and in the rules for their proof,
infringesontheequalprotectionclause.TheConstitutionalrightto
equalprotectionofthelawsordainsthatsimilarsubjectsshouldnot
be treated differently, so as to give undue favor to some and
unjustly discriminate against others; no person or class of persons
shall be denied the same protection of laws, which is enjoyed, by
otherpersonsorotherclassesinlikecircumstances.
Same; Same; Same; Same; 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
perpetrators own spouse.Asabovediscussed,thedefinitionofrape
inSection1ofR.A.No.8353pertainsto:(a)rape,astraditionally
known; (b) sexual assault; and (c) marital rape or that where the
victim is the perpetrators own spouse. The single definition for all
three forms of the crime shows that the law does not distinguish
betweenrapecommittedinwedlockandthosecommittedwithouta
marriage. Hence, the law affords protection to women raped by
theirhusbandandthoserapedbyanyothermanalike.
Same; Same; Same; A marriage license should not be viewed as
a license for a husband to forcibly rape his wife with impunity.
TheCourtadherestoandherebyadoptstherationaleinLibertain
rejectingtheargumentakintothoseraisedbyhereinaccused
appellant.Amarriagelicenseshouldnotbeviewedasalicensefora
husbandtoforciblyrapehiswifewithimpunity.Amarriedwoman
has the same right to control her own body, as does an unmarried
woman. She can give or withhold her consent to a sexual
intercourse with her husband and he cannot unlawfully wrestle
suchconsentfromherincasesherefuses.
Same; Same; Same; 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.The human
rightsofwomenincludetheirrighttohavecontroloveranddecide
113
113
People vs. Jumawan

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. In fine, since the law does not
separatelycategorizemaritalrapeandnonmaritalrapenorprovide
for different definition or elements for either, the Court, tasked to
interpret and apply what the law dictates, cannot trudge the
forbidden sphere of judicial legislation and unlawfully divert from
what the law sets forth. Neither can the Court frame distinct or
stricter evidentiary rules for marital rape cases as it would
inequitably burden its victims and unreasonably and irrationally
classify them differently from the victims of nonmarital rape.
Indeed, there exists no legal or rational reason for the Court to
apply the law and the evidentiary rules on rape any differently if
theaggressoristhewomansownlegalhusband.Theelementsand
quantum of proof that support a moral certainty of guilt in rape
cases should apply uniformly regardless of the legal relationship
betweentheaccusedandhisaccuser.
Same; Same; Evidence; In rape cases, the conviction of the
accused rests heavily on the credibility of the victim.Inrapecases,
the conviction of the accused rests heavily on the credibility of the
victim. Hence, the strict mandate that all courts must examine
thoroughly the testimony of the offended party. While the accused
in a rape case may be convicted solely on the testimony of the
complaining witness, courts are, nonetheless, dutybound to
establish that their reliance on the victims testimony is justified.
Courts must ensure that the testimony is credible, convincing, and
otherwise consistent with human nature. If the testimony of the
complainant meets the test of credibility, the accused may be
convictedonthebasisthereof.
Remedial Law; Evidence; Witnesses; It is settled that the
evaluation by the trial court of the credibility of witnesses and their
testimonies are entitled to the highest respect.Itissettledthatthe
evaluationbythetrialcourtofthecredibilityofwitnessesandtheir
testimoniesareentitledtothehighestrespect.Thisisinviewofits
inimitable opportunity to directly observe the witnesses and their
deportment, conduct and attitude, especially during cross
examination. Thus, unless it is shown that its evaluation was
taintedwitharbitrarinessorcertainfactsofsubstanceandvalue
114
114
People vs. Jumawan
have been plainly overlooked, misunderstood, or misapplied, the

samewillnotbedisturbedonappeal.
Criminal Law; Rape; Prosecution of Offenses; In the
prosecution of rape cases, the essential element that must be proved
is the absence of the victims consent to the sexual congress.
Entrenched is the rule that in the prosecution of rape cases, the
essentialelementthatmustbeprovedistheabsenceofthevictims
consent to the sexual congress. Under the law, consent is absent
when: (a) it was wrestled from the victim by force, threat or
intimidation,fraudulentmachinationsorgraveabuseofauthority;
or (b) the victim is incapable of giving free and voluntary consent
because he/she is deprived of reason or otherwise unconscious or

thattheoffendedpartyisunder12yearsofageorisdemented.
Same; Same; As an element of rape, force or intimidation need
not be irresistible; it may be just enough to bring about the desired
result.As an element of rape, force or intimidation need not be
irresistible;itmaybejustenoughtobringaboutthedesiredresult.
What is necessary is that the force or intimidation be sufficient to
consummatethepurposethattheaccusedhadinmindorisofsuch
adegreeastoimpelthedefenselessandhaplessvictimtobowinto
submission.
Same; Same; Medical Certificates; It is not the presence or
absence of blood on the victims underwear that determines the fact
of rape inasmuch as a medical certificate is dispensable evidence
that is not necessary to prove rape.Contrary to the accused
appellantsallusions,theabsenceofbloodtracesinKKKspantiesor
the lack of a medical certificate do not negate rape. It is not the
presence or absence of blood on the victims underwear that
determines the fact of rape inasmuch as a medical certificate is
dispensable evidence that is not necessary to prove rape. These
detailsdonotpertaintotheelementsthatproducethegravamenof
theoffensethatissexualintercoursewithawomanagainsther
willorwithoutherconsent.
Same; Same; It must be stressed that rape is essentially
committed in relative isolation, thus, it is usually only the victim
who can testify with regard to the fact of the forced sexual
intercourse.The accusedappellants assertion that MMM and
OOOstestimonies
115
115
People vs. Jumawan

lacked probative value as they did not witness the actual rape is
bereftofmerit.Itmustbestressedthatrapeisessentiallycommitted
in relative isolation, thus, it is usually only the victim who can
testify with regard to the fact of the forced sexual intercourse.
Hence,theprobativevalueofMMMandOOOstestimoniesrestnot
on whether they actually witnessed the rape but on whether their
declarations were in harmony with KKKs narration of the
circumstances, preceding, subsequent to and concurrent with, the
rapeincidents.
Same; Same; Marital Rape; 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.Fearofreprisalthrusocialhumiliationwhichis
thecommonfactorthatdeterrapevictimsfromreportingthecrime
totheauthoritiesismorecumbersomeinmaritalrapecases.Thisis
in view of the popular yet outdated belief that it is the wifes
absolute obligation to submit to her husbands carnal desires. A
husband raping his own wife is often dismissed as a peculiar
occurrence or trivialized as simple domestic trouble. Unfamiliarity
withorlackofknowledgeofthelawcriminalizingmaritalrape,the
stigma and public scrutiny that could have befallen KKK and her
family had the intervention of police authorities or even the
neighbors been sought, are acceptable explanations for the failure
ordelayinreportingthesubjectrapeincidents.
Same; Alibi; 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.Alibiisoneofthe
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
theaccusedbyeyewitnesseswhohadnoimpropermotivetotestify
falsely.Forthedefenseofalibi 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
betweentheplacewheretheaccusedwasandtheplacewherethe
crime was committed when the crime transpired, but more
importantly,thefacilityofaccessbetweenthetwoplaces.
116
116
People vs. Jumawan
Same; Same; Denials; Between the accusedappellants 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.Between the accusedappellants 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,
especiallyintheabsenceofillmotiveontheirparttofalselytestify
againsttheaccusedappellant.
Same; Rape; Penalties; Parole; Persons convicted of offenses
punished with reclusion perpetua, or whose sentences will be
reduced to reclusion perpetua, by reason of R.A. No. 9346, shall not
be eligible for parole under Act No. 4180, otherwise known as the
Indeterminate Sentence Law, as amended.The Court affirms the
penalty of reclusion perpetua, for each count of rape, meted upon
the accusedappellant for being in accord with Article 266A in
relation to 266B of the RPC. Further, he shall not be eligible for
parole pursuant to Section 3 of R.A. No. 9346, which states that
persons convicted of offenses punished with reclusion perpetua, or
whosesentenceswillbereducedtoreclusion perpetua,byreasonof
this Act, shall not be eligible for parole under Act No. 4180,
otherwiseknownastheIndeterminateSentenceLaw,asamended.
Same; Same; Words and Phrases; Rape is a crime that evokes
global condemnation because it is an abhorrence to a womans value
and dignity as a human being.Rapeisacrimethatevokesglobal
condemnation because it is an abhorrence to a womans value and
dignity as a human being. It respects no time, place, age, physical
condition or social status. It can happen anywhere and it can
happen to anyone. Even, as shown in the present case, to a wife,
inside her timehonored fortress, the family home, committed
against her by her husband who vowed to be her refuge from
cruelty. The herein pronouncement is an affirmation to wives that
ourrapelawsprovidetheatonementtheyseekfromtheirsexually
coercivehusbands.
Same; Same; Marital Rape; Husbands are reminded that

marriage is not a license to forcibly rape their wives.Husbandsare
onceagainremindedthatmarriageisnotalicensetoforciblyrape
their wives. A husband does not own his wifes body by reason of
marriage. By marrying, she does not divest herself of the human
right to an exclusive autonomy over her own body and thus, she
canlawfully
117
117
People vs. Jumawan

opt to give or withhold her consent to marital coitus. A husband
aggrieved by his wifes unremitting refusal to engage in sexual
intercourse cannot resort to felonious force or coercion to make her
yield. He can seek succor before the Family Courts that can
determine whether her refusal constitutes psychological incapacity
justifying an annulment of the marriage. Sexual intimacy is an
integral part of marriage because it is the spiritual and biological
communion that achieves the marital purpose of procreation. It
entailsmutualloveandselfgivingandassuchitcontemplatesonly
mutualsexualcooperationandneversexualcoercionorimposition.
AUTOMATIC REVIEW of a decision of the Court of

Appeals.
ThefactsarestatedintheopinionoftheCourt.
The Solicitor Generalforplaintiffappellee.
Dacalos Law Officeforaccusedappellant.
REYES,J.:
Among the duties assumed by the husband are his duties
to love, cherish and protect his wife, to give her a home, to
provide her with the comforts and the necessities of life
within his means, to treat her kindly and not cruelly or
inhumanely. He is bound to honor her x x x; it is his duty not
only to maintain and support her, but also to protect her
from oppression and wrong.[1]
Husbands do not have property rights over their wives
bodies. Sexual intercourse, albeit within the realm of
marriage,ifnotconsensual,isrape.ThisistheclearState
policy expressly legislated in Section 266A of the Revised
Penal Code (RPC), as amended by Republic Act (R.A.) No.
8353ortheAntiRapeLawof1997.
_______________
[1]26AmJurSS8,p.636.
118
118
People vs. Jumawan
The Case
This is an automatic review[2] of the Decision[3] dated
July9,2008oftheCourtofAppeals(CA)inC.A.G.R.CR
H.C.No.00353,whichaffirmedtheJudgment[4]datedApril
1, 2002 of the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Cagayan de
OroCity,Branch19,inCriminalCaseNos.99668and99
669 convicting Edgar Jumawan (accusedappellant) of two
(2)countsofrapeandsentencinghimtosufferthepenalty
ofreclusion perpetuaforeachcount.
The Facts
Accusedappellantandhiswife,KKK,[5]weremarriedon
October18,1975.Theylivedtogethersincethenandraised
their four (4) children[6] as they put up several businesses
overtheyears.
On February 19, 1999, KKK executed a Complaint
Affidavit,[7] alleging that her husband, the accused
appellant, raped her at 3:00 a.m. of December 3, 1998 at
theirresidenceinPhase2,VillaErnesto,Gusa,Cagayande
OroCity,and
_______________
[2] Pursuant to People v. Mateo, G.R. Nos. 14767887, July 7, 2004,
433SCRA640,653658.
[3] Penned by Associate Justice Jane Aurora C. Lantion, with
Associate Justices Edgardo A. Camello and Rodrigo F. Lim, Jr.,

concurring;Rollo,pp.530.
[4]IssuedbyJudgeAnthonyE.Santos;Records,pp.760769.
[5] The real name of the victim, her personal circumstances and
other information which tend to establish or compromise her identity,

aswellasthoseoftheirimmediatefamilyorhouseholdmembers,shall
not be disclosed to protect her privacy and fictitious initials shall,
instead, be used, in accordance with People v. Cabalquinto (533 Phil.
703; 502 SCRA 419 [2006]), and A.M. No. 041109SC dated September
19,2006.
[6]PretrialOrderdatedNovember16,1999,Records,pp.7174.
[7]Id.,atpp.2324.
119
119
People vs. Jumawan

thatonDecember12,1998,theaccusedappellantboxedher
shoulderforrefusingtohavesexwithhim.
On June 11, 1999, the Office of the City Prosecutor of
Cagayan de Oro City issued a Joint Resolution,[8] finding
probable cause for grave threats, less serious physical
injuries and rape and recommending that the appropriate
criminalinformationbefiledagainsttheaccusedappellant.
On July 16, 1999, two Informations for rape were filed
beforetheRTCrespectivelydocketedasCriminalCaseNo.
99668[9] and Criminal Case No. 99669.[10] The
Information in Criminal Case No. 99668 charged the
accusedappellantasfollows:
Thatonorabout10:30intheeveningmoreorless,ofOctober9,
1998, at Gusa, Cagayan de Oro City, Philippines, and within the
jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the abovenamed accused by
meansofforceuponpersondidthenandtherewilfully,unlawfully
and feloniously have carnal knowledge with the private

complainant,her[sic]wife,againstthelatter[]swill.
ContrarytoandinViolationofR.A.8353,theAntiRapeLawof
1997.
MeanwhiletheInformationinCriminalCaseNo.99669
reads:
That on or about 10:30 in the evening more or less, of October
10, 1998, at Gusa, Cagayan de Oro City, Philippines, and within
the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the abovenamed accused
by means of force upon person did then and there wilfully,
unlawfullyandfeloniouslyhavecarnalknowledgewiththeprivate
complainant,her[sic]wife,againstthelatterswill.
_______________
[8]Id.,atpp.35.
[9]Id.,atp.2.
[10]Id.,atp.13.
120
120
People vs. Jumawan
ContrarytoandinViolationofR.A.8353,theAntiRapeLawof
1997.
The accusedappellant was arrested upon a warrant

issued on July 21, 1999.[11] On August 18, 1999, the
accusedappellant filed a Motion for Reinvestigation,[12]
which was denied by the trial court in an Order[13] dated
August 19, 1999. On even date, the accusedappellant was
arraigned and he entered a plea of not guilty to both
charges.[14]
On January 10, 2000, the prosecution filed a Motion to
AdmitAmendedInformation[15]averringthatthenameof
the private complainant was omitted in the original
informations for rape. The motion also stated that KKK,
thruaSupplementalAffidavitdatedNovember15,1999,[16]
attestedthatthetruedatesofcommissionofthecrimeare
October 16, 1998 and October 17, 1998 thereby modifying
the dates stated in her previous complaintaffidavit. The
motion was granted on January 18, 2000.[17] Accordingly,
thecriminalinformationswereamendedasfollows:
CriminalCaseNo.99668:
That on or about October 16, 1998 at Gusa, Cagayan de Oro
City, Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable
Court,theabovenamedaccusedbymeansofforceuponpersondid
then and there wilfully, unlawfully and feloniously have carnal
knowledge with the private complainant, his wife, [KKK], against
thelatterswill.
_______________
[11]Id.,atp.27.
[12]Id.,atpp.4448.
[13]Id.,atp.50.
[14]Id.,atp.49.
[15]Id.,atpp.8485.
[16]Exhibit7.
[17]Records,p.89.
121
121
People vs. Jumawan

ContrarytoandinviolationofR.A.8353,theAntiRapeLawof
1997.[18]
CriminalCaseNo.99669:
That on or about October 17, 1998 at Gusa, Cagayan de Oro
City, Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable
Court,theabovenamedaccusedbymeansofforceuponpersondid
then and there wilfully, unlawfully and feloniously have carnal
knowledge with the private complainant, his wife, [KKK], against
thelatterswill.
ContrarytoandinviolationofR.A.8353,theAntiRapeLawof
1997.[19]
The accusedappellant was thereafter rearraigned. He

maintained his not guilty plea to both indictments and a
jointtrialofthetwocasesforthwithensued.
Version of the Prosecution
The prosecutions theory was anchored on the
testimonies of KKK, and her daughters MMM and OOO,
which, together with pertinent physical evidence, depicted
thefollowingevents:
KKK met the accusedappellant at the farm of her
parentswherehisfatherwasoneofthelaborers.Theygot
marriedafterayearofcourtship.[20]Whentheirfirstchild,
MMM,wasborn,KKKandtheaccusedappellantputupa
sarisaristore.[21] Later on, they engaged in several other
businesses trucking, rice mill and hardware. KKK
managed the businesses except for the rice mill, which,
ideally,wasundertheaccusedappellantssupervisionwith
thehelpofatrusted
_______________
[18]Id.,atp.86.
[19]Id.,atp.87.
[20]TSN,May24,2000,pp.9395.
[21]Id.,atpp.9899.
122
122
People vs. Jumawan
employee.Inreality,however,hemerelyassistedintherice
mill business by occasionally driving one of the trucks to
haulgoods.[22]
Accusedappellants keenness to make the businesses
flourish was not as fervent as KKKs dedication. Even the

daughters observed the disproportionate labors of their
parents.[23] He would drive the trucks sometimes but KKK
was the one who actively managed the businesses.[24] She
wantedtoprovideacomfortablelifefortheirchildren;he,on
theotherhand,didnotacquiescewiththatobjective.[25]
In1994,KKKandtheaccusedappellantboughtalotand
built a house in Villa Ernesto, Gusa, Cagayan de Oro
City.[26]Threeofthechildrentransferredresidencetherein
while KKK, the accusedappellant and one of their sons
stayedinDangcagan,Bukidnon.Sheshuttledbetweenthe
twoplacesregularlyandsometimesheaccompaniedher.[27]
In1998,KKKstayedinGusa,CagayanDeOroCitymostof
the days of the week.[28] On Wednesdays, she went to
Dangcagan, Bukidnon to procure supplies for the family
store and then returned to Cagayan de Oro City on the
sameday.[29]
Conjugalintimacydidnotreallycausemaritalproblems
between KKK and the accusedappellant. It was, in fact,
bothfrequentandfulfilling.Hetreatedherwellandshe,of
course, responded with equal degree of enthusiasm.[30]
However,in1997,hestartedtobebrutalinbed.Hewould
immediately remove her panties and, sans any foreplay,
insertherpenisin
_______________
[22]Id.,atp.101;TSN,July3,2000,p.5.
[23]TSN,February10,2000,pp.2627.
[24]TSN,August2,2000,p.21.
[25]TSN,May24,2000,p.99.
[26]Id.
[27]Id.,atp.100;TSN,August2,2000,pp.2122.
[28]TSN,February4,2000,p.30.
[29]TSN,August2,2000,p.23.
[30]TSN,May24,2000,pp.9597.
123
123
People vs. Jumawan

her vagina. His abridged method of lovemaking was
physically painful for her so she would resist his sexual
ambushbuthewouldthreatenherintosubmission.[31]
In 1998, KKK and the accusedappellant started
quarrelling usually upon his complaint that she failed to
attendtohim.Shewaspreoccupiedwithfinancialproblems
intheirbusinessesandabankloan.HewantedKKKtostay
athomebecauseawomanmuststayinthehouseandonly
goodinbed(sic)xxx.Shedisobeyedhiswishesandfocused
onhergoalofprovidingagoodfutureforthechildren.[32]
FourdaysbeforethesubjectrapeincidentsoronOctober
12,1998,KKKandtheaccusedappellantslepttogetherin
Cebu City where the graduation rites of their eldest
daughterwereheld.ByOctober14,1998,thethreeofthem
werealreadybackinCagayandeOroCity.[33]
OnOctober16,1998,theaccusedappellant,hiswifeKKK
and their children went about their nightly routine. The
familystoreintheirresidencewasclosedatabout9:00p.m.
beforesupperwastaken.Afterwards,KKKandthechildren
wenttothegirlsbedroomatthemezzanineofthehouseto
pray the rosary while the accusedappellant watched
television in the living room.[34] OOO and MMM then
prepared their beds. Soon after, the accusedappellant
fetchedKKKandbidhertocomewithhimtotheirconjugal
bedroominthethirdfloorofthehouse.KKKcomplied.[35]
Once in the bedroom, KKK changed into a daster and
fixedthematrimonialbedbutshedidnotliethereonwith
theaccusedappellantandinstead,restedseparatelyinacot
near
_______________
[31] TSN, July 3, 2000, p. 17; TSN, July 13, 2000, p. 14; KKKs
ComplaintAffidavitdatedFebruary19,1999,Records,pp.1011.
[32]TSN,July3,2000,pp.67.
[34] TSN, February 3, 2000, pp. 89; TSN, February 4, 2000, pp. 45
47;TSN,August2,2000,pp.56.
[35]TSN,February3,2000,pp.910;TSN,May24,2000,pp.7475.
124
124
People vs. Jumawan
the bed. Her reclusive behavior prompted him to ask

angrily: [W]hy are you lying on the c[o]t[?], and to
instantaneouslyorder:You transfer here[to]our bed.[36]
KKK insisted to stay on the cot and explained that she
had headache and abdominal pain due to her forthcoming
menstruation.Herreasonsdidnotappeasehimandhegot
angrier. He rose from the bed, lifted the cot and threw it
againstthewallcausingKKKtofallonthefloor.Terrified,
KKK stood up from where she fell, took her pillow and
transferredtothebed.[37]
The accusedappellant then lay beside KKK and not
before long, expressed his desire to copulate with her by
tapping his fingers on her lap. She politely declined by
warding off his hand and reiterating that she was not
feelingwell.[38]
The accusedappellant again asserted his sexual
yearningandwhenKKKtriedtoresistbyholdingontoher
panties,hepulledthemdownsoforcefullytheytoreonthe
sides.[39] KKK stayed defiant by refusing to bend her
legs.[40]
The accusedappellant then raised KKKs daster,[41]
stretched her legs apart and rested his own legs on them.
She tried to wrestle him away but he held her hands and
succeeded in penetrating her. As he was carrying out his
carnal desires, KKK continued to protest by desperately
shouting: [D]ont do that to me because Im not feeling

well.[42]
With a concrete wall on one side and a mere wooden
partition on the other enclosing the spouses bedroom,[43]
KKKs
_______________
[36]TSN,May24,2000,pp.7576.
[37]Id.,atpp.7677.
[38]Id.,atpp.7778.
[39]Id.,atpp.7879;ExhibitA.
[40]TSN,July13,2000,p.11.
[41]Id.
[42]TSN,May24,2000,pp.7981.
125
125
People vs. Jumawan

pleas were audible in the childrens bedroom where MMM
layawake.
Upon hearing her mother crying and hysterically
shouting:Eddie, dont do that to me, have pity on me,[44]
MMMwokeupOOOwhoproddedhertogototheirparents
room.[45] MMM hurriedly climbed upstairs, vigorously
knockedonthedoorofherparentsbedroomandinquired:
Pa, why is it that Mama is crying?[46] The accused
appellant then quickly put on his briefs and shirt, partly
openedthedoorandsaid:[D]ont interfere because this is a
family trouble,beforeclosingitagain.[47]Sincesheheard
her mother continue to cry, MMM ignored his fathers
admonition, knocked at the bedroom door again, and then
kicked it.[48] A furious accusedappellant opened the door
widerandrebukedMMMoncemore:Dont interfere us. Go
downstairs because this is family trouble!UponseeingKKK
crouchingandcryingontopofthebed,MMMboldlyentered
theroom,approachedhermotherandasked:Ma, why are
you crying?beforeaskingherfather:Pa, what happened to
Mama why is it that her underwear is torn[?][49]
When MMM received no definite answers to her
questions, she helped her mother get up in order to bring
her to the girls bedroom. KKK then picked up her torn
underwearandcoveredherselfwithablanket.[50]However,
theirbreakoutfromtheroomwasnoteasy.TopreventKKK
fromleaving,theaccusedappellantblockedthedoorwayby
extending his arm towards the knob. He commanded KKK
to[S]tay here, you sleep in our room,whenthetrembling
KKK pleaded: Eddie, allow me to go out. He then held
KKKshandsbutshepulled
_______________
[44]Id.,atpp.4950.
[45]TSN,August2,2000,p.8.
[47]Id.,atp.12;TSN,May24,2000,pp.8182.
[48]TSN,February3,2000,pp.1113;TSN,August2,2000,p.8.
[49]TSN,February3,2000,id.
[50]Id.,atp.14;TSN,May24,2000,pp.8283.
126
126
People vs. Jumawan
them back. Determined to get away, MMM leaned against

doorandembracedhermothertightlyastheypushedtheir
wayout.[51]
Intheirbedroom,thegirlsgavetheirmothersomewater
and queried her as to what happened.[52] KKK relayed:
[Y]our father is an animal, a beast; he forced me to have sex
withhim when Im not feeling well. The girls then locked
thedoorandletherrest.[53]
The accusedappellants aggression recurred the
followingnight.AfterclosingthefamilystoreonOctober17,
1998,KKKandthechildrentooktheirsupper.Theaccused
appellant did not join them since, according to him, he
alreadyatedinnerelsewhere.Afterrestingforashortwhile,
KKK and the children proceeded to the girls bedroom and
prayed the rosary. KKK decided to spend the night in the
rooms small bed and the girls were already fixing the
beddingswhentheaccusedappellantentered.Why are you
sleeping in the room of our children, he asked KKK, who
respondedthatshepreferredtosleepwiththechildren.[54]
He then scoffed: Its alright if you will not go with me,
anyway, there are women that could be paid [P]1,000.00.
Shedismissedhiscommentbyturningherheadawayafter
retorting:So be it.Afterthat,helefttheroom.[55]
He returned 15 minutes later[56] and when KKK still
refusedtogowithhim,hebecameinfuriated.Heliftedher
fromthebedandattemptedtocarryheroutoftheroomas
he exclaimed: Why will you sleep here[?] Lets go to our
bedroom.Whenshedefiedhim,hegrabbedhershortpants
causing
_______________
[53]Id.,atp.16;TSN,May24,2000,p.83;TSN,August2,2000,pp.
910.
[54]TSN,February3,2000,pp.1719;TSN,May24,2000,pp.8486;
TSN,August2,2000,pp.1113.
[56]Id.,atpp.4445.
127
127
People vs. Jumawan

themtotearapart.[57]Atthispoint,MMMinterfered,Pa,
dont do that to Mama because we are in front of you.[58]

Thepresenceofhischildrenapparentlydidnotpacify
theaccusedappellantwhoyelled,[E]ven in front of you, I
can have sex of your mother[sic]because Im the head of the
family. He then ordered his daughters to leave the room.
Frightened, the girls obliged and went to the staircase
where they subsequently heard the pleas of their helpless
motherresonatewiththecreakingbed.[59]
Theepisodesinthebedroomwerenolessdisturbing.The
accusedappellant forcibly pulled KKKs short pants and
panties.Hepaidnoheedasshebegged,[D]ont do that to
me, my body is still aching and also my abdomen and I
cannot do what you wanted me to do [sic]. I cannot
withstand sex.[60]
Afterremovinghisownshortpantsandbriefs,heflexed
her legs, held her hands, mounted her and forced himself
insideher.Oncegratified,theaccusedappellantputonhis
short pants and briefs, stood up, and went out of the room
laughingasheconceitedlyuttered:[I]ts nice, that is what
you deserve because you are[a] flirt or fond of sex.Hethen
retreatedtothemastersbedroom.[61]
Sensingthatthecommotionintheirbedroomhasceased,
MMMandOOOscurriedupstairsbutfoundthedoorlocked.
MMM pulled out a jalousie window, inserted her arm,
reached for the doorknob inside and disengaged its lock.
Upon entering the room, MMM and OOO found their
mother crouched on the bed with her hair disheveled. The
girls asked: Ma, what happened to you, why are you
crying?KKKre
_______________
[57]ExhibitB.
[60]TSN,May24,2000,pp.8889.
[61]Id.,atpp.8990.
128
128
People vs. Jumawan
plied:[Y]our father is a beast and animal, he again forced

me to have sex with him even if I dont feel well.[62]
Version of the Defense
The defense spun a different tale. The accused
appellants father owned a land adjacent to that of KKKs
father.HecametoknowKKKbecauseshebroughtfoodfor
herfatherslaborers.WhentheygotmarriedonOctober18,
1975, he was a high school graduate while she was an
elementarygraduate.
Theirhumbleeducationalbackgrounddidnotdeterthem
from pursuing a comfortable life. Through their joint hard
work and efforts, the couple gradually acquired personal
properties and established their own businesses that
includedaricemillmanagedbytheaccusedappellant.He
alsodrovetheirtrucksthathauledcoffee,copra,orcorn.[63]
TheaccusedappellantdeniedrapinghiswifeonOctober
16and17,1998.Heclaimedthatonthosedateshewasin
Dangcagan,Bukidnon,peelingcorn.OnOctober7,histruck
met an accident somewhere in Angeles Ranch, Maluko,
ManoloFortich,Bukidnon.Heleftthetruckbytheroadside
because he had to attend MMMs graduation in Cebu on
October12withKKK.WhentheyreturnedtoBukidnonon
October14,heaskedKKKandMMMtoproceedtoCagayan
deOroCityandjustleavehimbehindsohecantakecareof
thetruckandbuysomecorn.[64]
Ryle Equia (Equia), the spouses driver from January
1996 until June 1999 corroborated the above claims.
According to him, on October 16, 1998, the accused
appellant was within the vicinity of the rice mills loading
areainDangcagan,
_______________
[62] Id., at p. 90; TSN, February 3, 2000, pp. 2324; TSN, August 2,
2000,pp.16,1819.
[63]TSN,October24,2000,pp.47.
[64]Id.,atp.17.
129
129
People vs. Jumawan

Bukidnon,cleaningapickuptruck.OnOctober17,1998,he
and the accusedappellant were in Dangcagan, Bukidnon,
loadingsacksofcornintothetruck.Theyfinishedloadingat
3:00 p.m. The accusedappellant then instructed Equia to
proceed to Maluko, Manolo Fortich, Bukidnon while the
former attended a fiesta in New Cebu, Kianggat,
Dangcagan,Bukidnon.Ataround4:00p.m.,Equia,together
withahelperandamechanic,leftforMalukoinordertotow
the stalled truck left there by the accusedappellant in
October 7 and thereafter, bring it to Cagayan de Oro City
togetherwiththeseparatetruckloadedwithcorn.
They arrived in Maluko at 7:00 p.m. and it took them
three hours to turn the truck around and hoist it to the
towing bar of the other truck. At around 10:00 p.m., the
accusedappellantarrivedinMaluko.Thefourofthemthen
proceeded to Cagayan de Oro City where they arrived at
3:00a.m.ofOctober18,1998.Theaccusedappellantwentto
Gusawhiletheotherthreemenbroughtthedamagedtruck
toCugman.[65]
The accusedappellant asserted that KKK merely
fabricatedtherapechargesasherrevengebecausehetook
overthecontrolandmanagementoftheirbusinessesaswell
as the possession of their pickup truck in January 1999.
The accusedappellant was provoked to do so when she
failed to account for their bank deposits and business
earnings. The entries in their bank account showed the
balanceofP3,190,539.83onOctober31,1996butafteronly
amonthoronNovember30,1996,theamountdwindledto
ameaslyP9,894.88.[66]Herfailuretoimmediatelyreportto
thepolicealsobeliesherrapeallegations.[67]
KKKwantedtocoverupherextramaritalaffairs,which
the accusedappellant gradually detected from her odd
behavior. While in Cebu on October 12, 1998 for MMMs
graduation
_______________
[65]TSN,April30,2001,pp.68.
[66]TSN,October24,2000,pp.7,1011;Exhibit1.
[67]Id.,atp.7.
130
130
People vs. Jumawan
rites, the accusedappellant and KKK had sexual

intercourse. He was surprised when his wife asked him to
get a napkin to wipe her after having sex. He tagged her
request as hightech, because they did not do the same
when they had sex in the past. KKK had also become
increasingly indifferent to him. When he arrives home, it
was an employee, not her, who opened the door and
welcomedhim.Sheprettiedherselfandwouldnolongerask
forhispermissionwhenevershewentout.[68]
Bebs,[69] KKKs cousin and a cashier in their Bukidnon
store, gave the accusedappellant several love letters
purportedly addressed to Bebs but were actually intended
forKKK.[70]
KKK had more than ten paramours some of whom the
accusedappellantcametoknowas:Arsenio,JongJong,Joy
or Joey, somebody from the military or the Philippine
National Police, another one is a government employee, a
certain Fernandez and three other priests.[71] Several
persons told him about the paramours of his wife but he
never confronted her or them about it because he trusted
her.[72]
Whatfurtherconfirmedhissuspicionswasthestatement
madebyOOOonNovember2,1998.Atthattime,OOOwas
listening loudly to a cassette player. Since he wanted to
watchatelevisionprogram,heaskedOOOtoturndownthe
volumeofthecassetteplayer.Shegotannoyed,unplugged
theplayer,spinnedaroundandhittheaccusedappellants
headwiththesocket.Hisheadbled.Analtercationbetween
theaccusedappellantandKKKthereafterfollowedbecause
the latter took OOOs side. During the argument, OOO
blurted out that KKK was better off without the accused
appellantbecauseshehadsomebodyyoung,handsome,and
abusinessman
_______________
[68]Id.,atpp.1213.
[69]AlsoreferredtoasBebieintheotherpartsoftheRecords.
[70]Id.,atp.14;Exhibit3.
[72]Id.,atpp.1617.
131
131
People vs. Jumawan

unliketheaccusedappellantwhosmelledbad,andwasold,
andugly.[73]
KKK also wanted their property divided between them
withthreefourthsthereofgoingtoherandonefourthtothe
accusedappellant. However, the separation did not push
through because the accusedappellants parents
intervened.[74] Thereafter, KKK pursued legal separation
fromtheaccusedappellantbyinitiatingBarangayCaseNo.
0058899 before the Office of Lupong Tagapamayapa of
Gusa, Cagayan de Oro City and thereafter obtaining a
CertificatetoFileActiondatedFebruary18,1999.[75]
Ruling of the RTC
In its Judgment[76] dated April 1, 2002, the RTC
sustainedtheversionprofferedbytheprosecutionbygiving
greater weight and credence to the spontaneous and
straightforward testimonies of the prosecutions witnesses.
Thetrialcourtalsoupheldassincereandgenuinethetwo
daughterstestimonies,asitisnotnaturalinourculturefor
daughters to testify against their own father for a crime
suchasrapeifthesamewasnottrulycommitted.
The trial court rejected the version of the defense and
found unbelievable the accusedappellants accusations of
extramaritalaffairsandmoneysquanderingagainstKKK.
The trial court shelved the accusedappellants alibi for
being premised on inconsistent testimonies and the
contradicting declarations of the other defense witness,
Equia,astotheaccusedappellantsactualwhereaboutson
October16,1998.Accordingly,theRTCrulingdisposedas
follows:
_______________
[73]TSN,October24,2000,pp.1921;TSN,March12,2001,
p.155.
[74]TSN,October24,2000,p.18.
[75]Id.,atpp.1819;Exhibit2.
[76]Records,pp.760769.
132
132
People vs. Jumawan
WHEREFORE,theCourtherebyfindsaccusedEdgarJumawan
GUILTYbeyondreasonabledoubtofthetwo(2)separatecharges
ofrapeandherebysentenceshimtosufferthepenaltyofreclusion
perpetuaforeach,topaycomplainant[P]50,000.00ineachcaseas
moraldamages,indemnifycomplainantthesumof[P]75,000.00 in
eachcase,[P]50,000.00asexemplarydamagesandtopaythecosts.
SOORDERED.[77]
Ruling of the CA
InitsDecision[78]datedJuly9,2008,theCAaffirmedin
tototheRTCruling.TheCAheldthatSection14,Rule110
of the Rules of Criminal Procedure, sanctioned the
amendment of the original informations. Further, the
accusedappellant was not prejudiced by the amendment
because he was rearraigned with respect to the amended
informations.
The CA found that the prosecution, through the
straightforward testimony of the victim herself and the
corroborative declarations of MMM and OOO, was able to
establish,beyondreasonabledoubt,alltheelementsofrape
under R.A. No. 8353. The accusedappellant had carnal
knowledgeofKKKbyusingforceandintimidation.
TheCAalsoruledthatKKKsfailuretosubmitherselfto
medical examination did not negate the commission of the
crimebecauseamedicalcertificateisnotnecessarytoprove
rape.
The CA rejected the accusedappellants argument that
since he and KKK are husband and wife with mutual
obligationsofandrighttosexualintercourse,theremustbe
convincing physical evidence or manifestations of the
alleged force and intimidation used upon KKK such as
bruises.The
_______________
[77]Id.,atp.769.
[78]Rollo,pp.530.
133
133
People vs. Jumawan

CA explained that physical showing of external injuries is
notindispensabletoprosecuteandconvictapersonforrape;
what is necessary is that the victim was forced to have
sexualintercoursewiththeaccused.
Inaddition,theCAnotedthatthefactthatKKKandthe
accusedappellant are spouses only reinforces the
truthfulness of KKKs accusations because no wife in her
rightmindwouldaccuseherhusbandofhavingrapedherif
itwerenottrue.
The delay in the filing of the rape complaint was
sufficientlyexplainedbyKKKwhenshestatedthatsheonly
found out that a wife may charge his husband with rape
when the fiscal investigating her separate complaint for
gravethreatsandphysicalinjuriestoldheraboutit.
Finally, the CA dismissed the accusedappellants alibi
for lack of convincing evidence that it was physically
impossibleforhimtobeathisresidenceinCagayandeOro
Cityatthetimeofthecommissionofthecrimes,considering
that Dangcagan, Bukidnon, the place where he allegedly
was,isonlyaboutfourorfivehoursaway.Accordingly,the
decretalportionofthedecisionread:
WHEREFORE, in the light of the foregoing, the appealed
JudgmentisherebyAFFIRMED.
SO ORDERED.[79]

Hence, the present review. In the Court Resolution[80]
dated July 6, 2009, the Court notified the parties that, if
theysodesire,theymayfiletheirrespectivesupplemental
briefs.InaManifestationandMotion[81]datedSeptember4,
2009,the
_______________
[79]Id.,atp.29.
[80]Id.,atpp.3536;ThecontentsoftheResolutionwasreiteratedin
anotherResolutiondatedNovember15,2010,id.,atpp.4748.
[81]Id.,atpp.3738.
134
134
People vs. Jumawan
appellee, through the Office of the Solicitor General,

expressedthatitintendstoadoptitsBriefbeforetheCA.On
April16,2012,theaccusedappellant,throughcounsel,filed
his Supplemental Brief, arguing that he was not in
CagayandeOroCitywhentheallegedrapeincidentstook
place, and the presence of force, threat or intimidation is
negatedby:(a)KKKsvoluntaryactofgoingwithhimtothe
conjugalbedroomonOctober16,1998;(b)KKKsfailureto
put up resistance or seek help from police authorities; and
(c)theabsenceofamedicalcertificateandofbloodtracesin
KKKspanties.[82]
Our Ruling
I.Rape and marriage: the historical connection
The evolution of rape laws is actually traced to two
ancientEnglishpracticesofbridecapturewherebyaman
conqueredawomanthroughrapeandstealinganheiress
wherebyamanabductedawomanandmarriedher.[83]
The rape laws then were intended not to redress the
violation of the womans chastity but rather to punish the
actofobtainingtheheiresspropertybyforciblemarriage[84]
ortoprotectamansvaluableinterestinhiswifeschastity
orherdaughtersvirginity.[85]Ifamanrapedanunmarried
virgin,hewasguiltyofstealingherfatherspropertyandif
amanrapedhiswife,hewasmerelyusinghisproperty.[86]
_______________
[82]Id.,atpp.7893.
[83] Cassandra M. DeLaMothe, Liberta Revisited: A Call to Repeal
the Marital Exemption for All Sex Offenses in New Yorks Penal Law,
23FordhamUrbanLawJournal,p.861(1995).http://ir.
lawnet.fordham.edu/ulj,lastaccessedonMarch31,2014.
[84] Maria Pracher, The Marital Rape Exemption: A Violation of a
Womans Right of Privacy, 11 Golden Gate U. L. Rev., p. 725 (1981).

http://digitalcommons.law.ggu.edu/ggulrev/vol11/iss3/1, last accessed on
March31,2014.
[85]Supranote83.
[86]Id.
135
135
People vs. Jumawan

Womenweresubjugatedinlawsandsocietyasobjectsor
goods and such treatment was justified under three
ideologies.
Under the chattel theory prevalent during the 6th
century,awomanwasthepropertyofherfatheruntilshe
marriestobecomethepropertyofherhusband.[87]Ifaman
abducted an unmarried woman, he had to pay the owner,
andlaterbuyherfromtheowner;buyingandmarryinga
wifeweresynonymous.[88]
Fromthe11thcenturytothe16thcentury,awomanlost
heridentityuponmarriageandthelawdeniedherpolitical
powerandstatusunderthefeudaldoctrineofcoverture.[89]
Ahusbandhadtherighttochastisehiswifeandbeatherif
she misbehaved, allowing him to bring order within the
family.[90]
Thiswassupplantedbythemaritalunitytheory,which
espoused a similar concept. Upon marrying, the woman
becomesonewithherhusband.Shehadnorighttomakea
contract, sue another, own personal property or write a
will.[91]
II.The marital exemption rule
In the 17th century, Sir Matthew Hale (Hale), a Chief
Justice in England, conceived the irrevocable implied
consent theory that would later on emerge as the marital
exemptionruleinrape.Hestatedthat:
_______________
[87]Id.,atp.860.
[88] Id., at pp. 860861, citing Arthur R. Cleveland, Woman Under
theEnglishLaw71(FredB.Rothman7Co.1987)(1896),p.24.
[89]Id.,atpp.859860.
[90] Id., at p. 860, citing 1 William Blackstone Commentaries *432
and Katherine M. Schelong, Domestic Violence and the State:

Responses to and Rationales for Spousal Battering, Marital Rape and
Stalking,78MARQ.L.REV.79,81(1994).
[91]Id.,citingSchelong,86.(Othercitationsomitted)
136
136
People vs. Jumawan
[T]he 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.[92]
Therulewasobservedincommonlawcountriessuchas
theUnitedStatesofAmerica(USA)andEngland.Itgives
legalimmunitytoamanwhoforciblysexuallyassaultshis
wife, an act which would be rape if committed against a
woman not his wife.[93] In those jurisdictions, rape is

traditionallydefinedastheforciblepenetrationofthebody
ofawomanwhoisnotthewifeoftheperpetrator.[94]
The first case in the USA that applied the marital
exemption rule was Commonwealth v. Fogerty[95]
promulgated in 1857. The Supreme Judicial Court of
Massachusetts pronounced that it would always be a
defense in rape to show marriage to the victim. Several
othercourtsadheredtoasimilarrationalewithallofthem
citingHalestheoryasbasis.[96]
TherulewasformallycodifiedinthePenalCodeofNew
York in 1909. A husband was endowed with absolute
immunityfromprosecutionfortherapeofhiswife.[97]The
privilege
_______________
[92]1Hale,HistoryofPleasoftheCrown,pp.628629(1736),ascited
in People v. Liberta, Court of Appeals of New York, 474 N.E. 2D 567

(1984).
[93]Supranote84atp.717.(CitationsOmitted)
[94]
Julie Allison and Lawrence Wrightsman, Rape, The
Misunderstood Crime, United States, Sage Publications, Inc., p. 87

(1993).
[95]74Mass489,ascitedinPeople v. Liberta,supranote92.
[96]SeePeople v. Liberta,supranote92.
[97] DeLaMothe, supra note 83 at p. 862, citing N.Y. Penal Law SS
2010(Consol.1909),viz.:
Apersonwhopenetratesanactofsexualintercoursewithafemale
nothiswife,againstherwillorwithoutherconsent[i]sguiltyofrape
in the first degree and punishable by imprisonment for not more than
twentyyears.
137
137
People vs. Jumawan

was personal and pertained to him alone. He had the
maritalrighttorapehiswifebuthewillbeliablewhenhe
aidsorabetsanotherpersoninrapingher.[98]
In the 1970s, the rule was challenged by womens
movementsintheUSAdemandingforitsabolitionforbeing
violative of married womens right to be equally protected
underrapelaws.[99]
In1978,therulewasqualifiedbytheLegislatureinNew
York by proscribing the application of the rule in cases
wherethehusbandandwifearelivingapartpursuanttoa
courtorderwhichbyitstermsorinitseffectsrequiressuch
livingapart,oradecree,judgmentorwrittenagreementof
separation.[100]
In 1983, the marital exemption rule was abandoned in
NewYorkwhentheCourtofAppealsofNewYorkdeclared
thesameunconstitutionalinPeople v. Liberta[101]forlackof
rational basis in distinguishing between marital rape and
non
_______________
Apersonwhopenetratesanactofsexualintercoursewithafemale,
nothis wife, under the age of eighteen years, under circumstances not
amounting to rape in the first degree, is guilty of rape in the second
degree, and punishable with imprisonment for not more than ten
years.
[98] Id., citing the 1922 case of People v. Meli (193 N.Y.S. 365 [Sup.
Ct. 1922]). John Meli was convicted of rape for aiding and abetting
another man in raping his wife. Meli did not commit the rape himself
buthewaspresentwhiletherapewasbeingcommittedandheactually
helpedtoovercomehiswife.
[99]RacquelKennedyBergen,Ph.D.,MaritalRape,AppliedResearch
Forum, National Electronic Network on Violence Against Women, p. 2

(1999). www.hawaii.edu/hivandaids/Marital Rape.pdf, last accessed on
April 1, 2014, citing Bidwell, L., & White, P., The family context of
maritalrape.TheJournalofFamilyViolence,I,pp.277287(1986)and
Finkelhor,D.,&Yllo,K.,LicensetoRape:SexualAbuseofWives,New
York:Holt,Rinehart&Winston(1985).
[100]People v. Liberta,supranote92.
[101]Id.
138
138
People vs. Jumawan
marital rape. The decision, which also renounced Hales

irrevocableimpliedconsenttheory,ratiocinatedasfollows:
Wefindthatthereisnorationalbasisfordistinguishingbetween
marital rape and nonmarital rape. The various rationales which
have been asserted in defense of the exemption are either based
uponarchaicnotionsabouttheconsentandpropertyrightsincident
to marriage or are simply unable to withstand even the slightest
scrutiny.Wethereforedeclarethemaritalexemptionforrapeinthe
NewYorkstatutetobeunconstitutional.
LordHalesnotionofanirrevocableimpliedconsentbyamarried
woman to sexual intercourse has been cited most frequently in
support of the marital exemption. x x x Any argument based on a
supposed consent, however, is untenable. Rape is not simply a
sexual act to which one party does not consent. Rather, it is a
degrading, violent act which violates the bodily integrity of the
victim and frequently causes severe, longlasting physical and
psychic harm x x x. To ever imply consent to such an act is
irrational and absurd. Other than in the context of rape statutes,
marriage has never been viewed as giving a husband the right to
coerced intercourse on demand x x x. Certainly, then, a marriage
license should not be viewed as a license for a husband to forcibly
rapehiswifewithimpunity.Amarriedwomanhasthesameright
to control her own body as does an unmarried woman x x x. If a
husbandfeelsaggrievedbyhiswifesrefusaltoengageinsexual
intercourse, he should seek relief in the courts governing domestic
relations,notinviolentorforcefulselfhelpxxx.
The other traditional justifications for the marital exemption
were the commonlaw doctrines that a woman was the property of
her husband and that the legal existence of the woman was
incorporatedandconsolidatedintothatofthehusbandxxx.Both
these doctrines, of course, have long been rejected in this State.
Indeed,[nowhere]inthecommonlawworld[or]inanymodern
societyisawomanregardedaschattelordemeanedbydenialof
aseparatelegalidentityandthedig
139
139
People vs. Jumawan

nityassociatedwithrecognitionasawholehumanbeingxxx.[102]
(Citationsomitted)
By1993,maritalrapewasacrimeinall50states,with
17 of them, as well as the District of Columbia, outlawing
theactwithoutexemptions.Meanwhile,the33otherstates
granted some exemptions to a husband from prosecution
such as when the wife is mentally or physically impaired,
unconscious,asleep,orlegallyunabletoconsent.[103]
III.Marital Rape in the Philippines
Interestingly, no documented case on marital rape has
everreachedthisCourtuntilnow.Itappears,however,that
the old provisions of rape under Article 335 of the RPC
adheredtoHalesirrevocableimpliedconsenttheory,albeit
in a limited form. According to Chief Justice Ramon C.
Aquino,[104]ahusbandmaynotbeguiltyofrapeunder
Article 335 of Act No. 3815 but, in case there is legal
separation,thehusbandshouldbeheldguiltyofrapeifhe
forceshiswifetosubmittosexualintercourse.[105]
In1981,thePhilippinesjoined180countriesinratifying
the United Nations Convention on the Elimination of all
FormsofDiscriminationAgainstWomen(UNCEDAW).[106]
_______________
[102]Id.
[103] Bergen, supra note 99, citing Bergen, R.K., Wife Rape:
Understanding the Response of Survivors and Service Providers.

ThousandOaks,CA:Sage(1996)andRussell,D.E.H.,RapeinMarriage,
NewYork,MacmillanPress(1990).
[104]Tenure:November20,1985toMarch6,1986.
[105]RamonC.Aquino,The Revised Penal Code,VolumeIII,Central
LawbookPublishingCo.,Inc.(1988ed.),pp.382383.
[106]
http://pcw.gov.ph/internationalcommitments/cedaw/state
obligations,lastvisitedonMarch20,2014;CEDAWcameintoeffecton
September 4, 1981, the Philippines has signed it on July 17, 1980 and
ratified it on July 19, 1981, the first Association of South East Asian
Nationcountrytodoso.
140
140
People vs. Jumawan
Hailedasthefirstinternationalwomensbillofrights,the
CEDAW is the first major instrument that contains a ban
on all forms of discrimination against women. The
Philippinesassumedtheroleofpromotinggenderequality
andwomensempowermentasavitalelementinaddressing
global concerns.[107] The country also committed, among

others,tocondemndiscriminationagainstwomeninallits
forms,andagreedtopursue,byallappropriatemeansand
withoutdelay,apolicyofeliminatingdiscriminationagainst
womenand,tothisend,undertook:
(a)Toembodytheprincipleoftheequalityofmenandwomen
intheirnationalconstitutionsorotherappropriatelegislationifnot
yet incorporated therein and to ensure, through law and other
appropriatemeans,thepracticalrealizationofthisprinciple;
(b)To adopt appropriate legislative and other measures,
including sanctions where appropriate, prohibiting all
discriminationagainstwomen;
xxxx
(f)To take all appropriate measures, including legislation, to
modify or abolish existing laws, regulations, customs and practices
whichconstitutediscriminationagainstwomen;
(g)To repeal all national penal provisions which constitute
discriminationagainstwomen.[108]
In compliance with the foregoing international

commitments, the Philippines enshrined the principle of
gender equality in the 1987 Constitution specifically in
Sections11and14ofArticleIIthereof,thus:
_______________
[107] CA Associate Justice Myrna DimarananVidal, Women
Empowerment,
http://ca.judiciary.gov.ph/index.php?
action=mnuactual_contents&ap=j8040&p=y, last accessed on April 1,

2014.
[108]CEDAW,Article2,PartI.
141
141
People vs. Jumawan

Sec.11.The State values the dignity of every human person
andguaranteesfullrespectforhumanrights.
xxxx
Sec.14.The State recognizes the role of women in nation
building,andshallensurethefundamentalequalitybeforethelaw
ofwomenandmen.
ThePhilippinesalsoaccededtoadoptandimplementthe
generally accepted principles of international law such as
theCEDAWanditsalliedissuances,viz.:
Article II, Section 2.The Philippines renounces war as an
instrument of national policy, and adopts the generally
accepted principles of international law as part of the law of
the land and adheres to the policy of peace, equality, justice,
freedom,cooperation,andamitywithallnations.(Emphasisours)
The Legislature then pursued the enactment of laws to
propagate gender equality. In 1997, R.A. No. 8353

eradicated the stereotype concept of rape in Article 335 of
theRPC.[109] 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 laws most progressive proviso is the 2nd paragraph of
Section2thereofrecognizingtherealityofmaritalrapeand
criminalizingitsperpetration,viz.:
Article266C.Effect of Pardon.The subsequent valid
marriage between the offended party shall extinguish the criminal
actionorthepenaltyimposed.
In case it is the legal husband who is the offender, the
subsequent forgiveness by the wife as the offended party shall
extinguishthecriminalactionorthe
_______________
[109] Also known as The AntiRape Law of 1997, the law took effect on
October22,1997;SeePeople v. Maceda,405Phil.698,721;353SCRA228,247
(2001).
142
142
People vs. Jumawan
penalty:Provided, That the crime shall not be extinguished or the

penaltyshallnotbeabatedifthemarriageisvoidab initio.
Read 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 rapists legal relationship with his
victim,thus:
Article266A.Rape: When And How Committed.Rape is
committed:
1)By a man who shall have carnal knowledge of a woman
underanyofthefollowingcircumstances:
a)Throughforce,threat,orintimidation;
b)Whentheoffendedpartyisdeprivedof
reasonorotherwiseunconscious;
c)Bymeansoffraudulentmachinationor
graveabuseofauthority;and
d)When the offended party is under
twelve (12) years of age or is demented, even
though none of the circumstances mentioned
abovebepresent.
The explicit intent to outlaw marital rape is deducible

fromtherecordsofthedeliberationsofthe10thCongresson
thelawsprogenitors,HouseBillNo.6265andSenateBill
No.650.Inspiteofqualmsontaggingthecrimeasmarital
rapeduetoconservativeFilipinoimpressionsonmarriage,
theconsensusofourlawmakerswasclearlytoincludeand
penalizemaritalrapeunderthegeneraldefinitionofrape,
viz.:
MR. DAMASING: Madam Speaker, Your Honor, one more
point of clarification in the House version on AntiRape
Bill,HouseBillNo.6265,weneveragreedtomaritalrape.
But under Article 266C, it says here: In case it is the
legalhusbandwhois
143
143
People vs. Jumawan

theoffenderDoesthispresupposethatthereisnowmarital
rape?xxx.
MR. LARA: x x x [I]n this jurisdiction, well, I only have a
limited, very limited 17 years of private practice in the
legalprofession,MadamSpeaker,andIbelievethatIcan
put at stake my license as a lawyer in this jurisdiction
thereisnolawthatprohibitsahusbandfrombeingsued
by the wife for rape. Even jurisprudence, we dont have
any jurisprudence that prohibits a wife from suing a
husband.Thatiswhyevenifwedontprovideinthisbill
expanding the definition of crime that is now being
presentedforapproval,MadamSpeaker,evenifwedont
providehereformaritalrape,evenifwedontprovidefor
sexualrape,thereistherightofthewifetogoagainstthe
husband. The wife can sue the husband for marital rape
andshecannotbepreventedfromdoingsobecauseinthis
jurisdiction there is no law that prohibits her from doing
so.Thisiswhywehadtoputsecondparagraphof266C
because it is the belief of many of us. x x x, that if it is
true that in this jurisdiction there is marital rape even if
we dont provide it here, then we must provide for
something that will unify and keep the cohesion of the
family together that is why we have the second
paragraph.
MR. DAMASING: Madam Speaker, Your Honor, under
the House version specifically House Bill No. 6265
our provision on a husband forcing the wife is not
maritalrape,itismaritalsexualassault.
MR.LARA:Thatiscorrect,MadamSpeaker.
MR. DAMASING: But here it is marital rape because
there is no crime of sexual assault. So, Your Honor,
direct to the point, under Article 266C, is it our
understanding that in the second paragraph, quote:
In case it is the legal husband who is the offender,
thisreferstomaritalrapefiledagainstthehusband?
Isthatcorrect?
144
144
People vs. Jumawan
MR.LARA:No,MadamSpeaker,notentirely,no.Theanswer
isno.
MR. DAMASING: So if the husband is guilty of sexual

assault,whatdoyoucallit?
MR.LARA:Sexualassault,MadamSpeaker.
MR. DAMASING: There is no crime of sexual assault,
Your Honor, we have already stated that. Because
under1and2itisalldenominatedasrape,thereis
no crime of sexual assault. That is why I am sorry
that our House version which provided for sexual
assault was not carried by the Senate version
because all sexual crimes under this bicameral
conferencecommitteereportareallnowdenominated
as rape whether the penalty is from reclusion
perpetua to death or whether the penalty is only
prision mayor.Sothereismaritalrape,YourHonor,
isthatcorrect?
xxxx
MR.DAMASING:Madam Speaker, Your Honor, I am
in favor of this. I am in favor of punishing the
husband who forces the wife even to 30 years
imprisonment. But please do not call it marital
rape, call it marital sexual assault because of
the sanctity of marriage. x x x.[110] (Emphasis
ours)
HON. APOSTOL: In our version, we did not mention
maritalrapebutmaritalrapeisnotexcluded.
HON. ROCO: Yeah. No. But I think there is also no specific
mention.
HON. APOSTOL: No. No. No. Silent lang yung marital
rape.xxxx
HON.ROCO:xxx[I]fwecanretaintheeffectofpardon,then
thismaritalrapecanbeimplicitlycontained
_______________
[110] Consideration of the Conference Committee Reports, September 3,
1997.
145
145
People vs. Jumawan

in the second paragraph. x x x So marital rape actually
was in the House version x x x. But it was not
another definition of rape.Youwillnotice,itonlysays,
that because you are the lawful husband does not mean
that you cannot commit rape. Theoretically, I mean, you
can beat up your wife until shes blue. And if the wife
complains she was raped, I guess that, I mean, you just
cannot raise the defense x x x[:] I am the husband. But
whereinthemarriagecontractdoesitsaythatIcanbeat
you up? Thats all it means. That is why if we stop
referringtoitasmaritalrape,acceptanceiseasy.Because
parang angmaritalrape,marriedna nga kami. I cannot
havesex.No,whatitissayingisyoure[the]husbandbut
you cannot beat me up. x x x. Thats why to me its not
alarming. It was just a way of saying youre [the]
husband, you cannot say when I am charged with rape
xxx.
PRESIDING OFFICER SHAHANI: All right, so how do
youproposeitifweputitin[?]
HON.ROCO:xxx[A]ll we are saying [is] that if you are
the lawful husband does not mean you can have
carnal knowledge by force[,] threat or intimidation
or by depriving your wife reason, a grave abuse of
authority, I dont know how that cannot apply. Di ba
yung,orputtinganinstrumentintothe,yun ang sinasabi
ko lang, it is not meant to have another
classification of rape. It is all the same definition
x x x.
xxxx
HON. ROCO: What is 266F? x x x. Now if we can
retain 266F x x x, we can say that this rule is
implicit already in the first proviso. It implies
na there is an instance when a husband can be
charged [with] rape x x x.
HON.ROXAS:Otherwise,silentna.
HON. ROCO: Otherwise, we are silent na. So parang i
deletenatin ito.Butitisunderstoodthatthis rule
146
146
People vs. Jumawan
of evidence is now transport[ed], put into 266F, the
effect of pardon.
PRESIDING OFFICER APOSTOL: We will retain this
effectofpardon.Wewillremovemaritalrape.
HON. ROCO: No, yun ang, oowe will remove this one on
page 3 but we will retain the one on page 8, the
effect of pardon. x x x [I]t is inferred but we leave it
because after all it is just a rule of evidence. But I
think we should understand that a husband
cannot beat at his wife to have sex. Di ba? I think
that should be made clear. x x x.
xxxx
HON. ROCO: x x x [W]e are not defining a crime of
marital rape. All we are saying is that if youre [the]
legal husband, Jesus Christ, dont beat up to have sex. I
almost want, you are my wife, why do you have to beat
meup.
So,ganoon.So,ifwebothjustifyitthatwayintheReportas
inferredinproviso,Imean,wecanfaceup,Ihope,tothe
women and they would understand that it is half
achieved.
HON.ZAMORA:Ithink,Raul,aslongasweunderstand
thatwearenotdefiningorcreatinganewcrimebut
instead,wearejustdefiningaruleofevidence.xxx.
HON.ROCO:Then,inwhichcasewemayjustwanttoclarify
as a rule of evidence the fact that he is husband is not,
doesnotnegate.[111]
CHAIRMAN LARA: x x x We all agree on the substance
of the point in discussion. The only disagreement
now is where to place it. Let us clear this matter.

Therearetwosuggestionsnowonmaritalrape.One
isthatitisrapeifitisdonewithforceorin
_______________
[111]BicameralConferenceCommitteeMeeting,CommitteeonRevisionof
LawsJ/WCommitteeonWomen,March17,1997.
147
147
People vs. Jumawan

timidation or any of the circumstances that would define
rapexxximmaterial.Thefactthatthehusbandand
wifeareseparateddoesnotcomeintothepicture.So
even if they are living under one roof x x x for as
long as the attendant circumstances of the
traditional rape is present, then that is
rape.[112]
PRESIDING OFFICER ANGARACASTILLO: Mr.
Chairman,xxx[t]his provision on marital rape,
it does not actually change the meaning of
rape. It merely erases the doubt in anybodys
mind, whether or not rape can indeed be
committed by the husband against the wife.So
the bill really says, you having been married to one
anotherisnotalegalimpediment.SoI dont really
think there is any need to change the concept
of rape as defined presently under the revised
penal code. This do[es] not actually add
anything to the definition of rape. It merely
says, it is merely clarificatory. That if indeed
the wife has evidence to show that she was
really brow beaten, or whatever or forced or
intimidated into having sexual intercourse
against her will, then the crime of rape has
been committed against her by the husband,
notwithstanding the fact that they have been
legally married.Itdoesnotchangeanythingatall,
Mr.Chairman.
PRESIDING OFFICER APOSTOL: Yes, I think, there is no
changeonthisxxx.[113]
The paradigm shift on marital rape in the Philippine

jurisdictionisfurtheraffirmedbyR.A.No.9262,[114]which
regards
_______________
[112] Subcommittee on Disadvantaged Women (Committee on
Women) JT. Subcommittee on Criminal Laws Committee on Revision

ofLaws),November15,1995.
[113] Committee on Revision of Laws J/W Committee on Women,
January29,1996.
148
148
People vs. Jumawan

rapewithinmarriageasaformofsexualviolencethatmay
be committed by a man against his wife within or outside
thefamilyabode,viz.:
Violence against women and their children refers
to any act or a series of acts committed by any
person against a woman who is his wife,formerwife,
or against a woman with whom the person has or had a
sexual or dating relationship, or with whom he has a
common child, or against her child whether legitimate or
illegitimate,within or without the family abode,which
result in or is likely to result in physical, sexual,
psychological harm or suffering, or economic abuse
including threats of such acts, battery, assault, coercion,
harassmentorarbitrarydeprivationofliberty.It includes,
but is not limited to, the following acts:
A.PhysicalViolencereferstoactsthatincludebodily
orphysicalharm;
B.Sexual violence refers to an act which is
sexual in nature, committed against a woman or her
child. It includes, but is not limited to:
a)rape, sexual harassment, acts of
lasciviousness, treating a woman or her child as a
sex object, making demeaning and sexually
suggestiveremarks,physicallyattackingthesexual
partsofthevictimsbody,forcingher/himtowatch
obscenepublicationsandindecentshowsorforcing
the woman or her child to do indecent acts and/or
make films thereof, forcing the wife and
mistress/lovertoliveintheconjugalhomeorsleep
togetherinthesameroomwiththeabuser;
b)acts causing or attempting to cause the
victimtoengageinanysexualactivityby
_______________
[114]ANTIVIOLENCE AGAINSTWOMEN ANDTHEIR CHILDRENACT OF2004.
149
149
People vs. Jumawan

force, threat of force, physical or other harm or
threatofphysicalorotherharmorcoercion;
c)Prostitutingthewomanorchild.
Statistical figures confirm the above characterization.
Emotionalandotherformsofnonpersonalviolencearethe
most common type of spousal violence accounting for 23%
incidence among evermarried women. One in seven ever
married women experienced physical violence by their
husbands while eight percent (8%) experienced sexual
violence.[115]
IV.Refutation
of
the
accusedappellants
arguments
The crux of the accusedappellants plea for acquittal
mirrors the irrevocable implied consent theory. In his
appealbriefbeforetheCA,hepositsthatthetwoincidents
of sexual intercourse, which gave rise to the criminal
charges for rape, were theoretically consensual, obligatory
even, because he and the victim, KKK, were a legally
married and cohabiting couple. He argues that consent to
copulation is presumed between cohabiting husband and
wifeunlessthecontraryisproved.
The accusedappellant further claims that this case
shouldbeviewedandtreateddifferentlyfromordinaryrape
casesandthatthestandardsfordeterminingthepresenceof
consentorlackthereofmustbeadjustedonthegroundthat
sexualcommunityisamutualrightandobligationbetween
husbandandwife.[116]
Thecontentionsfailedtomusterlegalandrationalmerit.
The ancient customs and ideologies from which the
irrevocable implied consent theory evolved have already
been superseded by modern global principles on the
equalityofrights
_______________
[115]
http://pcw.gov.ph/statistics/201304/statisticsviolenceagainst
filipinowomen,lastvisitedonMarch18,2014.
[116]CARollo,pp.150151.
150
150
People vs. Jumawan
between men and women and respect for human dignity

established in various international conventions, such as
the CEDAW. The Philippines, as State Party to the
CEDAW,recognizedthatachangeinthetraditionalroleof
menaswellastheroleofwomeninsocietyandinthefamily
is needed to achieve full equality between them.
Accordingly, the country vowed to take all appropriate
measures to modify the social and cultural patterns of
conduct of men and women, with a view to achieving the
elimination of prejudices, customs and all other practices
which are based on the idea of the inferiority or the
superiorityofeitherofthesexesoronstereotypedrolesfor
menandwomen.[117]OneofsuchmeasuresisR.A.No8353
insofarasiteradicatedthearchaicnotionthatmaritalrape
cannot exist because a husband has absolute proprietary
rightsoverhiswifesbodyandthusherconsenttoeveryact
ofsexualintimacywithhimisalwaysobligatoryoratleast,
presumed.
Another important international instrument on gender
equality is the UN Declaration on the Elimination of
Violence Against Women, which was promulgated[118] by
theUNGeneralAssemblysubsequenttotheCEDAW.The
Declaration, in enumerating the forms of genderbased
violence that constitute acts of discrimination against
women, identified marital rape as a species of sexual
violence,viz.:
Article1
For the purposes of this Declaration, the term violence

againstwomenmeans any act of genderbased violence
that results in, or is likely to result in, physical, sexual
or psychological harm or suffering to women, including
threats of such acts, coercion or arbitrary deprivation of
liberty,whether occurring in public or in private life.
_______________
[117]CEDAW,Article5,PartI.
[118]
UN
General
Assembly,
December
20,
1993.
http://www.un.org/documents/ga/res/48/a48r104.htm, last accessed on April 1,

2014.
151
151
People vs. Jumawan

Article2
Violence against women shall be understood to encompass, but
notbelimitedto,thefollowing:
(a)Physical, sexual and psychological violence
occurring in the family, including battering, sexual
abuse of female children in the household, dowryrelated
violence, marital rape, female genital mutilation and
othertraditionalpracticesharmfultowomen,nonspousal
violence and violence related to exploitation.[119]
(Emphasisours)
Clearly, it is now acknowledged that rape, as a form of

sexual violence, exists within marriage. A man who
penetratesherwifewithoutherconsentoragainstherwill
commitssexualviolenceuponher,andthePhilippines,asa
State Party to the CEDAW and its accompanying
Declaration, defines and penalizes the act as rape under
R.A.No.8353.
A woman is no longer the chattelantiquated practices
labeled her to be. A husband who has sexual intercourse
withhiswifeisnotmerelyusingaproperty,heisfulfillinga
maritalconsortiumwithafellowhumanbeingwithdignity
equal[120]tothatheaccordshimself.Hecannotbepermitted
toviolatethisdignitybycoercinghertoengageinasexual
actwithoutherfullandfreeconsent.Surely,thePhilippines
cannot renege on its international commitments and
accommodateconservativeyetirrationalnotionsonmarital
activities[121]thathavelosttheirrelevanceinaprogressive
society.
_______________
[119]Id.
[120]UniversalDeclarationofHumanRights,Article1:
Allhumanbeingsarebornfreeandequalindignityandrights.They
are endowed with reason and conscience and should act towards one
anotherinaspiritofbrotherhood.
[121]UNDeclarationontheEliminationofViolenceAgainstWomen,
Article4:
152
152
People vs. Jumawan
ItistruethattheFamilyCode,[122]obligatesthespouses
to love one another but this rule sanctions affection and
sexual intimacy, as expressions of love, that are both
spontaneous and mutual[123] and not the kind which is
unilaterallyexactedbyforceorcoercion.
Further, the delicate and reverent nature of sexual
intimacybetweenahusbandandwifeexcludescrueltyand
coercion. Sexual intimacy brings spouses wholeness and
oneness. It is a gift and a participation in the mystery of
creation. It is a deep sense of spiritual communion. It is a
functionwhichenlivensthehopeofprocreationandensures
the continuation of family relations. It is an expressive
interestineachothersfeelingsatatimeitisneededbythe
other and it can go a long way in deepening marital
relationship.[124] When it is egoistically utilized to despoil
maritalunioninordertoadvanceafeloniousurgeforcoitus
by force, violence or intimidation, the Court will step in to
protect its lofty purpose, vindicate justice and protect our
laws and State policies. Besides, a husband who feels
aggrievedbyhisindifferentoruninterestedwifesabsolute
refusal to engage in sexual intimacy may legally seek the
courts intervention to declare her psychologically
incapacitated to fulfill an essential marital obligation.[125]
But
_______________
States should condemn violence against women and should not
invoke any custom, tradition or religious consideration to avoid their
obligations with respect to its elimination. States should pursue by all
appropriate means and without delay a policy of eliminating violence
againstwomenxxx.
[122] Article68.The husband and wife are obliged to live
together, observe mutual love, respect and fidelity, and render

mutualhelpandsupport.(Emphasisours)
[123]SeeTsoi v. Court of Appeals,334Phil.294,304;266SCRA324,
334(1997).
[124]Id.
[125] Refusal to have sexual intercourse must be rooted on
psychological incapacity which in turn must be established by the

requirements of gravity, juridical antecedence and incurability; Baccay
v. Baccay,G.R.No.173138,December1,2010,636SCRA350,368369;
153
153
People vs. Jumawan

hecannotandshouldnotdemandsexualintimacyfromher
coercivelyorviolently.
Moreover, to treat marital rape cases differently from
nonmarital rape cases in terms of the elements that
constitute the crime and in the rules for their proof,

infringesontheequalprotectionclause.TheConstitutional
righttoequalprotectionofthelaws[126]ordainsthatsimilar
subjects should not be treated differently, so as to give
undue favor to some and unjustly discriminate against
others; no person or class of persons shall be denied the
sameprotectionoflaws,whichisenjoyed,byotherpersons
orotherclassesinlikecircumstances.[127]
Asabovediscussed,thedefinitionofrapeinSection1of
R.A.No.8353pertainsto:(a)rape,astraditionallyknown;
(b) sexual assault; and (c) marital rape or that where the
victimistheperpetratorsownspouse.Thesingledefinition
forallthreeformsofthecrimeshowsthatthelawdoesnot
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
rapedbyanyothermanalike.
The posture advanced by the accusedappellant
arbitrarilydiscriminatesagainstmarriedrapevictimsover
unmarried rape victims because it withholds from married
women raped by their husbands the penal redress equally
grantedbylawtoallrapevictims.
_______________
See alsotheConcurringOpinionofAssociateJusticeArturoD.Brion
in the case stating that: The failure to consummate the marriage by
itself,however,doesnotconstituteasagroundtonullifythemarriage.
The spouses refusal to have intimate sexual relations must be due to
causes psychological in nature, i.e., the psychological condition of the
spouserenders[her]incapableofhavingintimatesexualrelationswith
theother.xxx.636SCRA350,375.
[126]1987CONSTITUTION,ArticleIII,Section1.
[127]City of Manila v. Hon. Laguio, Jr.,495Phil.289,326;455SCRA
308,347(2005).
154
154
People vs. Jumawan
Further, the Court adheres to and hereby adopts the

rationaleinLibertainrejectingtheargumentakintothose
raised by herein accusedappellant. A marriage license
shouldnotbeviewedasalicenseforahusbandtoforcibly
rapehiswifewithimpunity.Amarriedwomanhasthesame
right to control her own body, as does an unmarried
woman.[128] She can give or withhold her consent to a
sexual intercourse with her husband and he cannot
unlawfully wrestle such consent from her in case she
refuses.
Lastly,thehumanrightsofwomenincludetheirrightto
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.[129]Womendonotdivestthemselvesofsuchright
bycontractingmarriageforthesimplereasonthathuman
rightsareinalienable.[130]
In fine, since the law does not separately categorize

maritalrapeandnonmaritalrapenorprovidefordifferent
definition or elements for either, the Court, tasked to
interpretandapplywhatthelawdictates,cannottrudgethe
forbidden sphere of judicial legislation and unlawfully
divertfromwhat
_______________
[128]Supranote92.
[129]BeijingDeclarationandPlatformforAction,TheFourthWorld
Conference on Women, September 15, 1995, paragraph 96.

http://www.un.org/womenwatch/daw/beijing/pdf/BDPfA%20E.pdf,
last
accessed on April 3, 2014. According to the Philippine Commission on

Women, the Philippines acceded to the commitments set forth in the
Beijing
Declaration
and
Platform
for
Action.
http://www.pcw.gov.ph/internationalcommitments, last accessed on

April3,2014.
[130]R.A.No.9710(TheMagnaCartaofWomen),Section3:
Principles of Human Rights of Women.Human rights are

universalandinalienable.Allpeopleintheworldareentitledtothem.
TheuniversalityofhumanrightsisencompassedinthewordsofArticle
1 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, which states that all
humanbeingsarefreeandequalindignityandrights.(Emphasisours)
155
155
People vs. Jumawan

the law sets forth. Neither can the Court frame distinct or
stricterevidentiaryrulesformaritalrapecasesasitwould
inequitably burden its victims and unreasonably and
irrationally classify them differently from the victims of
nonmaritalrape.
Indeed, there exists no legal or rational reason for the
Court to apply the law and the evidentiary rules on rape
any differently if the aggressor is the womans own legal
husband.Theelementsandquantumofproofthatsupporta
moral certainty of guilt in rape cases should apply
uniformly regardless of the legal relationship between the
accusedandhisaccuser.
Thus,theCourtmeticulouslyreviewedthepresentcase
in accordance with the established legal principles and
evidentiary policies in the prosecution and resolution of
rape cases and found that no reversible error can be
imputedtotheconvictionmetedtheaccusedappellant.
The evidence for the prosecution was
based on credible witnesses who gave
equally credible testimonies
Inrapecases,theconvictionoftheaccusedrestsheavily
on the credibility of the victim. Hence, the strict mandate
that all courts must examine thoroughly the testimony of
theoffendedparty.Whiletheaccusedinarapecasemaybe
convicted solely on the testimony of the complaining
witness, courts are, nonetheless, dutybound to establish
that their reliance on the victims testimony is justified.
Courts must ensure that the testimony is credible,
convincing,andotherwiseconsistentwithhumannature.If
the testimony of the complainant meets the test of

credibility, the accused may be convicted on the basis
thereof.[131]
_______________
[131] People v. Publico, G.R. No. 183569, April 13, 2011, 648 SCRA
734,742.
156
156
People vs. Jumawan
Itissettledthattheevaluationbythetrialcourtofthe
credibilityofwitnessesandtheirtestimoniesareentitledto
the highest respect. This is in view of its inimitable
opportunity to directly observe the witnesses and their
deportment, conduct and attitude, especially during cross
examination. Thus, unless it is shown that its evaluation
wastaintedwitharbitrarinessorcertainfactsofsubstance
andvaluehavebeenplainlyoverlooked,misunderstood,or
misapplied,thesamewillnotbedisturbedonappeal.[132]
After approximating the perspective of the trial court
thruameticulousscrutinyoftheentirerecordsofthetrial
proceedingsandthetranscriptofeachwitnessestestimony,
theCourtfoundnojustificationtodisturbitsfindings.
Rather,theCourtobservedthatKKKandhertestimony
were both credible and spontaneous. Hailed to the witness
standonsixseparateoccasions,KKKneverwaveredneither
did her statements vacillate between uncertainty and
certitude. She remained consistent, categorical,
straightforward, and candid during the rigorous cross
examinationandonrebuttalexamination,shewasableto
convincingly explain and debunk the allegations of the
defense.
She vividly recounted how the accusedappellant forced
hertohavesexwithhimdespiteherrefusalonOctober16,
1998. He initially ordered her to sleep beside him in their
conjugal bed by violently throwing the cot where she was
resting.Inordernottoaggravatehistemper,KKKobeyed.
Onthebed,heinsinuatedforthemtohavesex.Whenshe
rejectedhisadvancesduetoabdominalpainandheadache,
his request for intimacy transformed into a stubborn
demand.Unyielding,KKKheldherpantiesbuttheaccused
appellant forcibly pulled them down. The tug caused the
smallclothingtotearapart.Shereiteratedthatshewasnot
feeling well and begged him to stop. But no amount of
resistanceorbeggingsubdued
_______________
[132]People v. Agustin,G.R.No.194581,July2,2012,675SCRA424,
434.
157
People vs. Jumawan
157
him. He flexed her two legs apart, gripped her hands,

mounted her, rested his own legs on hers and inserted his
penisintohervagina.Shecontinuedpleadingbuthenever
desisted.[133]
Her accurate recollection of the second rape incident on
October 17, 1998 is likewise unmistakable. After the
appalling episode in the conjugal bedroom the previous
night, KKK decided to sleep in the childrens bedroom.
Whileherdaughterswerefixingthebeddings,theaccused
appellantbargedintotheroomandberatedherforrefusing
to go with him to their conjugal bedroom. When KKK
insisted to stay in the childrens bedroom, the accused
appellant got angry and pulled her up. MMMs attempt to
pacify the accusedappellant further enraged him. He
reminded them that as the head of the family he could do
whateverhewantswithhiswife.Todemonstratehisroleas
patriarch,heorderedthechildrentogooutoftheroomand
thereafter proceeded to force KKK into sexual intercourse.
HeforciblypulleddownhershortpantsandpantiesasKKK
beggedDont do that to me, my body is still aching and also
my abdomen and I cannot do what you wanted me to do. I
cannot withstand sex.[134] But her pleas fell on deaf ears.
Theaccusedappellantremovedhisshortsandbriefs,spread
KKKslegsapart,heldherhands,mountedherandinserted
his penis into her vagina. After gratifying himself, he got
dressed,lefttheroomashechuckled:Its nice, that is what
you deserve because you are [a] flirt or fond of sex.[135]
Entrenched is the rule that in the prosecution of rape
cases, the essential element that must be proved is the
absence of the victims consent to the sexual congress.[136]
Underthelaw,consentisabsentwhen:(a)itwaswrestled
fromthe
_______________
[133]TSN,May24,2000,pp.7581.
[134]Id.,atpp.8789.
[135]Id.,atpp.8990.
[136]Sison v. People,G.R.No.187229,February22,2012,666SCRA
645,659.
158
158
People vs. Jumawan
victim by force, threat or intimidation, fraudulent

machinationsorgraveabuseofauthority;or(b)thevictim
is incapable of giving free and voluntary consent because
he/sheisdeprivedofreasonorotherwiseunconsciousorthat
theoffendedpartyisunder12yearsofageorisdemented.
Contrarytotheaccusedappellantsasseverations,KKKs
consent was wrestled from her through force and
intimidation both of which were established beyond moral
certainty by the prosecution through the pertinent
testimonyofKKK,viz.:
OntheOctober16,1998rapeincident:
(DirectExamination)
ATTY.LARGO:
QSo,whileyouwerealreadylyingonthebedtogetherwithyourhusband,
doyourememberwhathappened?
AHeliedownbesidemeandaskedmetohavesexwithhim.
QHowdidhemanifestthathewantedtohavesexwithyou?
AHeputhishandonmylapandaskedmetohavesexwithhimbutI
wardedoffhishand.
QCanyoudemonstratetothisCourthowdidheusehishand?
A Yes. witness demonstrating on how the accused used his finger by
touchingorknockingherlapwhichmeansthathewantedtohavesex.
QSo,whatdidyoudoafterthat?
AIwardedoffhishandandrefusedbecauseIwasnotfeelingwell.(at
thisjuncturethewitnessissobbing)
QSo,whatdidyourhusbanddowhenyourefusedhimtohavesexwith
you?
AHeinsistedandhepulledmypantieforcibly,thatiswhymypantie
[sic]wastorn.
159
159
People vs. Jumawan

QWhy,whatdidyoudowhenhestartedtopullyourpantie[sic]?
AIresistedandtriedtoholdmypantie[sic]butIfailed,becauseheisso
strong.
xxxx
QSo,whenyourpantie[sic]wastornbyyourhusband,whatelsedidhe
do?
AHeflexedmytwolegsandrestedhistwolegsonmylegs.
QSoafterthatwhatelsedidhedo?
AHesucceededinhavingsexwithmebecauseheheldmytwohandsno
matterhowIwrestledbutIfailedbecauseheisstrongerthanme.
COURT:Makeitofrecordthatthewitnessissobbingwhilesheisgiving
hertestimony.
ATTY.LARGO:(Tothewitnesscontng.)
QSo,whatdidyoudowhenyourhusbandalreadystretchedyourtwolegs
androdeonyouandheldyourtwohands?
AItoldhim,dontdothatbecauseImnotfeelingwellandmywhole
bodyisaching.
QHowdidyousaythattoyourhusband?
AItoldhim,dontdothattomebecauseImnotfeelingwell.
QDidyousaythatinthemanneryouaresayingnow?
xxxx
AIshoutedwhenIutteredthatwords.
xxxx
QWasyourhusbandabletoconsummatehisdesire?
xxxx
AYes,sir,becauseIcannotdoanything.[137]
_______________
[137]TSN,May24,2000,pp.7781.
160
160
People vs. Jumawan
(CrossExamination)
ATTY.AMARGA:
Q Every time you have sex with your husband it was your husband
normallyremoveyourpanty?
AYes,Sir.
QItwasnotunusualforyourhusbandthentoremoveyourpantybecause
accordingtoyouhenormallydothatifhehavesexwithyou?
AYes,Sir.
QAndfinallyaccordingtoyouyourhusbandhavesexwithyou?
A Yes, Sir because he forcibly used me in spite of holding my panty
becauseIdontwanttohavesexwithhimatthattime.
QYoudidnotspreadyourlegsatthattimewhenheremovedyourpanty?
AYes,Sir.
QMeaning,yourpositionofyourlegswasnormalduringthattime?
AItriedtoresistbynotflexingmylegs.
xxxx
QAtthattimewhenyourhusbandallegedlyremovedyourpantyhealso
removeyournightgown?
ANo,Sir.
QAndhedidpulloutyourduster[sic]towardsyourface?
AHeraisedmyduster[sic]up.
QInotherwordsyourfacewascoveredwhenheraisedyourduster[sic]?
ANo,onlyonthebreastlevel.[138]
_______________
[138]TSN,July13,2000,pp.1011.
161
161
People vs. Jumawan

OntheOctober17,1998rapeincident:
(DirectExamination)
ATTY.LARGO
QSo,afteryourchildrenwentoutoftheroom,whattranspired?
AHesuccessfullyhavingsexwithmebecausehepulledmyshortpantand
pantieforcible.
QSo,whatdidyousaywhenheforciblypulledyourshortandpantie?
AItoldhim,dontdothattome,mybodyisstillachingandalsomy
abdomen and I cannot do what you wanted me to do. I cannot
withstandsex.
QSo,whathappenedtoyourshortwhenheforciblypulleditdown?
AItwastorn.
QAndafteryourshortandpantiewaspulleddownbyyourhusband,what
didhedo?
A He also removed his short and brief and flexed my two legs and
mountedonmeandsucceededinhavingsexwithme.[139]
Theaccusedappellantforcedhiswifewhenheknowingly
overpoweredherbygrippingherhands,flexingherlegsand
then resting his own legs thereon in order to facilitate the
consummation of his muchdesired nonconsensual sexual
intercourse.
Records also show that the accusedappellant employed
sufficient intimidation upon KKK. His actuations prior to
theactualmomentofthefeloniouscoitusrevealedthathe
imposed his distorted sense of moral authority on his wife.
He furiously demanded for her to lay with him on the bed
andthereaftercoercedhertoindulgehissexualcraving.
The fury the accusedappellant exhibited when KKK

refusedtosleepwithhimontheirbed,whensheinsistedto
_______________
[139]TSN,May24,2000,pp.8889.
162
162
People vs. Jumawan
sleep in the childrens bedroom and the fact that he

exercises dominance over her as husband all cowed KKK
intosubmission.
The fact that KKK voluntarily went with the accused
appellant to their conjugal bedroom on October 16, 1998
cannotbestretchedtomeanthatsheconsentedtotheforced
sexualintercoursethatensued.Theaccusedappellantwas
KKKshusbandandhenceitwascustomaryforhertosleep
in the conjugal bedroom. No consent can be deduced from
such act of KKK because at that juncture there were no
indicationsthatsexualintercoursewasabouttotakeplace.
The issue of consent was still irrelevant since the act for
which the same is legally required did not exist yet or at
least unclear to the person from whom the consent was
desired.Thesignificantpointwhenconsentmustbegivenis
atthattimewhenitiscleartothevictimthatheraggressor
issolicitingsexualcongress.Inthiscase,thatpointiswhen
the accusedappellant tapped his fingers on her lap, a
gestureKKKcomprehendedtobeaninvitationforasexual
intercourse,whichsherefused.
Resistance, medical certificate
and blood traces.
We cannot give credence to the accusedappellants
argumentthatKKKshouldhavehithimtoconveythatshe
was resisting his sexual onslaught. Resistance is not an
elementofrapeandthelawdoesnotimposeuponthevictim
theburdentoproveresistance[140]muchmorerequiresher
toraiseaspecifickindthereof.
At any rate, KKK put up persistent, audible and
intelligibleresistancefortheaccusedappellanttorecognize
thatsheseriouslydidnotassenttoasexualcongress.She
heldontoherpantiestopreventhimfromundressingher,
sherefused
_______________
[140]People v. Estoya,G.R.No.200531,December5,2012,687SCRA
376,386.
163
163
People vs. Jumawan

tobendherlegsandsherepeatedlyshoutedandbeggedfor
himtostop.
Moreover, as an element of rape, force or intimidation
neednotbeirresistible;itmaybejustenoughtobringabout
the desired result. What is necessary is that the force or
intimidation be sufficient to consummate the purpose that
the accused had in mind[141] or is of such a degree as to
impel the defenseless and hapless victim to bow into
submission.[142]
Contrary to the accusedappellants allusions, the
absence of blood traces in KKKs panties or the lack of a
medicalcertificatedonotnegaterape.Itisnotthepresence
or absence of blood on the victims underwear that
determines the fact of rape[143] inasmuch as a medical
certificate is dispensable evidence that is not necessary to
proverape.[144]Thesedetailsdonotpertaintotheelements
thatproducethegravamenoftheoffensethatissexual
intercourse with a woman against her will or without her
consent.[145]
The accusedappellant harps on the acquittal ruling in
People v. Godoy,[146]theevidentiarycircumstancesofwhich
are, however, disparate from those in the present case. In
Godoy, the testimony of the complainant was inherently
weak, inconsistent, and was controverted by the
prosecutions medicolegal expert witness who stated that
forcewasnotappliedbasedonthepositionofherhymenal
laceration.ThisledtheCourttoconcludethattheabsence
ofanysignofphysical
_______________
[141]People v. Dimanawa,G.R.No.184600,March9,2010,614SCRA
770,778.
[142] People v. Magtibay, 435 Phil. 353, 365; 386 SCRA 322, 342
(2002).
[143] People v. Baltazar, 397 Phil. 277, 288; 343 SCRA 250, 259260
(2000).
[144] People v. Joey Bacatan, G.R. No. 203315, September 18, 2013,
706SCRA170.
[145]Id.
[146]321Phil.279;250SCRA676(1995).
164
164
People vs. Jumawan
violenceonthevictimsbodyisanindicationofconsent.[147]
Here, however, KKKs testimony is, as discussed earlier,
credible,spontaneousandforthright.
The corroborative testimonies of
MMM and OOO are worthy of
credence.
TheaccusedappellantsassertionthatMMMandOOOs
testimonies lacked probative value as they did not witness
the actual rape is bereft of merit. It must be stressed that
rapeisessentiallycommittedinrelativeisolation,thus,itis
usually only the victim who can testify with regard to the
fact of the forced sexual intercourse.[148] Hence, the
probativevalueofMMMandOOOstestimoniesrestnoton
whether they actually witnessed the rape but on whether
theirdeclarationswereinharmonywithKKKsnarrationof
thecircumstances,preceding,subsequenttoandconcurrent
with,therapeincidents.
MMM and OOOs testimonies substantiated significant
pointsinKKKsnarration.MMMheardKKKshoutingand
crying:Eddie, dont do that to me, have pity on me[149]on
the night of October 16, 1998 shortly after KKK and the
accusedappellant went to their conjugal bedroom. When
MMM went upstairs to check on her mother, the accused
appellant admonished her for meddling. Frustrated to aid
hermotherwhopersistentlycried,MMMkickedthedoorso
hard the accusedappellant was prompted to open it and
rebuke MMM once more. OOO heard all these commotion
fromtheroomdownstairs.
_______________
[147]Id.,atp.318;pp.708709.
[148] People v. Cias, G.R. No. 194379, June 1, 2011, 650 SCRA 326,
337.
[149]TSN,February3,2000,p.10;TSN,February4,2000,pp.4850.
165
165
People vs. Jumawan

MMMthensawhermothercrouchedonthebed,crying,
with her hair disheveled while her torn panty lay on the
floor. After a brief struggle with the accusedappellant,
MMM and KKK were finally able to escape and retreat to
the childrens bedroom where KKK narrated to her
daughters:[Y]our father is an animal, a beast; he forced me
to have sex with him when Im not feeling well.
KKK gave a similar narration to MMM and OOO the
following night after the accusedappellant barged inside
the childrens bedroom. The couple had an argument and
whenMMMtriedtointerfere,theaccusedappellantordered
herandOOOtogetoutafterbraggingthathecanhavesex
withhiswifeeveninfrontofthechildrenbecauseheisthe
head of the family. The girls then stayed by the staircase
wheretheyafterwardsheardtheirmotherhelplesslycrying
andshoutingfortheaccusedappellanttostop.
Indeed, the testimonies of KKK, MMM and OOO
coherentlydepictedthattheaccusedappellant,throughthe
useofforceandintimidation,hadnonconsensualandforced
carnalknowledgeofhiswife,KKKonthenightsofOctober
16and17,1998.
KKKs helpless screams and pleas from inside the
bedroom coupled with her verbal and physical resistance
wereclearmanifestationsofcoercion.Herappearancewhen
MMM saw her on the bed after the accused appellant
opened the door on October 16, 1998, her conduct towards
theaccusedappellantonherwayoutoftheroom,andher
categorical outcry to her children after the two bedroom
episodesallgeneratetheconclusionthatthesexualacts
thatoccurredwereagainstherwill.
Failure to immediately report to
the police authorities, if satisfac

torily explained, is not fatal to
the credibility of a witness.
166
166
People vs. Jumawan
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
filedtherapecharges.Delayorvacillationbythevictimsin
reportingsexualassaultsdoesnotnecessarilyimpairtheir
credibilityifsuchdelayissatisfactorilyexplained.[150]
At that time, KKK and her daughters were not aware
that a husband forcing his wife to submit to sexual
intercourseisconsideredrape.Infact,KKKonlyfoundout
that she could sue his husband for rape when Prosecutor
BenjaminTabique,Jr.(ProsecutorTabique)toldherabout
itwhenshefiledtheseparatechargesforgravethreatsand
physicalinjuriesagainsttheaccusedappellant.[151]Itmust
be noted that the incidents occurred a year into the
effectivityofR.A.No.8353abolishingmaritalexemptionin
rape cases hence it is understandable that it was not yet
known to a layman as opposed to legal professionals like
ProsecutorTabique.
Inaddition,fearofreprisalthrusocialhumiliationwhich
isthecommonfactorthatdeterrapevictimsfromreporting
thecrimetotheauthoritiesismorecumbersomeinmarital
rapecases.Thisisinviewofthepopularyetoutdatedbelief
that it is the wifes absolute obligation to submit to her
husbandscarnaldesires.Ahusbandrapinghisownwifeis
often dismissed as a peculiar occurrence or trivialized as
simpledomestictrouble.
Unfamiliarity with or lack of knowledge of the law
criminalizing marital rape, the stigma and public scrutiny
that could have befallen KKK and her family had the
interventionofpoliceauthoritiesoreventheneighborsbeen
sought,areacceptableexplanationsforthefailureordelay
inreportingthesubjectrapeincidents.
_______________
[150]People v. Satioquia,460Phil.167,173;414SCRA60,65(2003).
[151]TSN,July3,2000,pp.1314.
167
167
People vs. Jumawan

The victims testimony on the wit
ness stand rendered unnecessary
the presentation of her complaint
affidavit as evidence.
The failure of the prosecution to present KKKs
complaintaffidavit for rape is not fatal in view of the
credible, candid and positive testimony of KKK on the

witness stand. Testimonial evidence carries more weight
than the affidavit since it underwent the rudiments of a
direct,cross,redirectandrecrossexaminations.Affidavits
or statements taken ex parte are generally considered
incomplete and inaccurate. Thus, by nature, they are
inferiortotestimonygivenincourt.[152]
Ill motive imputed to the victim
The ill motive, which the accusedappellant imputed to
KKK, does not inspire belief as it is riddled with loopholes
generated by incongruent and flimsy evidence. The
prosecutionwasabletoestablishthattheP3Milliondeposit
inthespousesbankaccountwastheproceedsoftheirloan
fromtheBankofPhilippineIslands(BPI).ExhibitJ,which
isaBPIMLinstructionsheetdatedOctober31,1996inthe
amount of P3,149,840.63 is the same amount the accused
appellant claimed to have entrusted to her wife. Although
the accusedappellant denied being aware of such loan, he
admitted that approximately P3 Million was spent for the
construction of their house. These pieces of evidence
effectivelybelietheaccusedappellantsallegationthatKKK
couldnotaccountforthemoneydepositedinthebank.[153]
Anent,KKKsallegedextramaritalaffairs,theaccused
appellantfailedtoexplainhowBebscouldbehiswifeKKK
whenthelettersendergreetedBebsahappybirthdayon
_______________
[152] See People v. Cabtalan, G.R. No. 175980, February 15, 2012,
666SCRA174,192193.
[153]TSN,November21,2000,pp.1314.
168
168
People vs. Jumawan
October 28 while KKKs birthday is June 23. The accused

appellant also did not present Bebs herself, being a more
competentwitnesstotheexistenceoftheallegedloveletters
for KKK. He likewise failed, despite promise to do so, to
presenttheoriginalcopiesofsuchlovelettersneitherdidhe
substantiate KKKs supposed extramarital affairs by
presenting witnesses who could corroborate his claims.
Further, the Court finds it unbelievable that an able man
would not have the temerity to confront his wife who has
fooled around with 10 men some of whom he has even
met. The accusedappellants erratic statements on the
witness stand are inconsistent with the theory of extra
marital romance making it reasonable to infer that he
merelymadeupthosemaliciousstoriesasadesperateploy
toextricatehimselfoutofthislegalquandary.
Atbest,thebasisoftheallegedillicitaffairsofKKKwere
the accusedappellants unfounded suspicions that hold no
evidentiaryweightinlawandthusincompetenttodestroy
KKKs credibility and that of her testimony. In sum, the
defense failed to present sufficiently convincing evidence
that KKK is a mere vindictive wife who is harassing the
accusedappellantwithfabricatedrapecharges.
Alibi
Itmustbestressedthatinraisingtheirrevocableimplied
consent theory as defense, the accusedappellant has
essentially admitted the facts of sexual intercourse
embodied in the two criminal informations for rape. This
admissionisinconsistentwiththedefenseofalibiandany
discussionthereonwillthusbeirrelevant.
Atanyrate,thecourtsa quo correctlyrejectedhisalibi.
Alibiisoneoftheweakestdefensesnotonlybecauseitis
inherentlyfrailandunreliable,butalsobecauseitiseasyto
fabricate and difficult to check or rebut. It cannot prevail
over
_______________
[154]People v. Ogarte,G.R.No.182690,May30,2011,649SCRA395,
413,citingPeople v. Palomar,343Phil.628,663664;278SCRA114,147
(1997).
[155]People v. Viojela,G.R.No.177140,October17,2012,684SCRA
241,257258.
[156]TSN,May11,2001,p.171.
169
169
People vs. Jumawan

the positive identification of the accused by eyewitnesses
whohadnoimpropermotivetotestifyfalsely.[154]
For the defense of alibi to prosper, the accused must
provenotonlythathewasatsomeotherplaceatthetimeof
thecommissionofthecrime,butalsothatitwasphysically
impossible for him to be at the locus delicti or within its
immediatevicinity.Physicalimpossibilityrefersnotonlyto
the geographical distance between the place where the
accusedwasandtheplacewherethecrimewascommitted
when the crime transpired, but more importantly, the
facilityofaccessbetweenthetwoplaces.[155]
Even granting in arguendo that the accusedappellant
had indeed attended a fiesta in Dangcagan, Bukidnon or
washaulingcornwithEquiaonthedatesofcommissionof
the crime, the same will not easily exonerate him. The
accusedappellant failed to adduce clear and convincing
evidence that it was physically impossible for him to be at
his residence in Cagayan de Oro City at the time of the
commission of the crime. Dangcagan, Bukidnon can be
traversedbyaboutfourorfivehoursfromCagayandeOro
City,andevenlessbyprivatevehiclewhichwasavailable
to the accusedappellant at any time.[156] Thus, it was not
physicallyimpossibleforhimtobeatthesitus criminis at
the dates and times when the two rape incidents were
committed.
Betweentheaccusedappellantsalibianddenial,andthe
positiveidentificationandcredibletestimonyofthevictim,
and her two daughters, the Court must give weight to the
latter,especiallyintheabsenceofillmotiveontheirpartto
falselytestifyagainsttheaccusedappellant.
170
170
People vs. Jumawan
Conclusion
All told, the presumption of innocence endowed an
accusedappellantwassufficientlyovercomebyKKKsclear,
straightforward, credible, and truthful declaration that on
two separate occasions, he succeeded in having sexual
intercourse with her, without her consent and against her
will. Evidence of overwhelming force and intimidation to
consummate rape is extant from KKKs narration as
believably corroborated by the testimonies of MMM and
OOO and the physical evidence of KKKs torn panties and
shortpants.Basedthereon,thereasonandconscienceofthe
Courtismorallycertainthattheaccusedappellantisguilty
ofrapinghiswifeonthenightsofOctober16and17,1998.
Penalties
The Court affirms the penalty of reclusion perpetua, for
each count of rape, meted upon the accusedappellant for
beinginaccordwithArticle266Ainrelationto266Bofthe
RPC.Further,heshallnotbeeligibleforparolepursuantto
Section 3 of R.A. No. 9346, which states that persons
convicted of offenses punished with reclusion perpetua, or
whose sentences will be reduced to reclusion perpetua, by
reasonofthisAct,shallnotbeeligibleforparoleunderAct
No. 4180, otherwise known as the Indeterminate Sentence
Law,asamended.[157]
The Court sustains the moral damages awarded in the
amountofP50,000.00.Moraldamagesaregrantedtorape
victims without need of proof other than the fact of rape
under the assumption that the victim suffered moral
injuriesfromtheexperiencesheunderwent.[158]
_______________
[157]People of the Philippines v. Joey Bacatan,supranote144.
[158]Id.
171
171
People vs. Jumawan

The award of civil indemnity is proper; it is mandatory
uponthefindingthatrapetookplace.Consideringthatthe
crime committed is simple rape, there being no qualifying
circumstancesattendantinitscommission,theappropriate
amount is P50,000.00[159] and not P75,000.00 as awarded
bytheRTC.
To serve as an example for public good and in order to
deter a similar form of domestic violence, an award of
P30,000.00asexemplarydamagesisimperative.[160]
The damages awarded shall earn legal interest at the
rateofsixpercent(6%)per annum tobereckonedfromthe
dateoffinalityofthisjudgmentuntilfullypaid.[161]
A Final Note
Rapeisacrimethatevokesglobalcondemnationbecause
it is an abhorrence to a womans value and dignity as a
human being. It respects no time, place, age, physical
condition or social status. It can happen anywhere and it
canhappentoanyone.Even,asshowninthepresentcase,
toawife,insidehertimehonoredfortress,thefamilyhome,
committedagainstherbyherhusbandwhovowedtobeher
refuge from cruelty. The herein pronouncement is an
affirmation to wives that our rape laws provide the
atonementtheyseekfromtheirsexuallycoercivehusbands.
Husbandsareonceagainremindedthatmarriageisnot
a license to forcibly rape their wives. A husband does not
ownhiswifesbodybyreasonofmarriage.Bymarrying,she
does not divest herself of the human right to an exclusive
autonomyoverherownbodyandthus,shecanlawfullyopt
togiveorwithholdherconsenttomaritalcoitus.Ahusband
aggrieved by his wifes unremitting refusal to engage in
sexual
_______________
[159]Id.
[160]Id.
[161]Id.
172
172
People vs. Jumawan
intercourse cannot resort to felonious force or coercion to

makeheryield.HecanseeksuccorbeforetheFamilyCourts
that can determine whether her refusal constitutes
psychological incapacity justifying an annulment of the
marriage.
Sexualintimacyisanintegralpartofmarriagebecause
it is the spiritual and biological communion that achieves
the marital purpose of procreation. It entails mutual love
and selfgiving and as such it contemplates only mutual
sexualcooperationandneversexualcoercionorimposition.
The Court is aware that despite the noble intentions of
thehereinpronouncement,menacingpersonalitiesmayuse
this as a tool to harass innocent husbands. In this regard,
let it be stressed that safeguards in the criminal justice
systemareinplacetospotandscrutinizefabricatedorfalse
marital rape complaints and any person who institutes
untrue and malicious charges will be made answerable
under the pertinent provisions of the RPC and/or other
laws.
WHEREFORE, all the foregoing considered, the
DecisiondatedJuly9,2008oftheCourtofAppealsinC.A.
G.R. CRH.C. No. 00353 is hereby AFFIRMED with
MODIFICATIONS.AccusedappellantEdgarJumawanis
foundGUILTYbeyondreasonabledoubtoftwo(2)countsof
RAPE and is sentenced to suffer the penalty of reclusion
perpetua foreachcount,withouteligibilityforparole.Heis
further ordered to pay the victim, KKK, the amounts of
P50,000.00 as civil indemnity, P50,000.00 as moral
damages, and P30,000.00 as exemplary damages, for each

count of rape. The award of damages shall earn legal
interestattherateofsixpercent(6%)per annum fromthe
finalityofthisjudgmentuntilfullypaid.
SO ORDERED.
Sereno (CJ., Chairperson), LeonardoDe
Bersamin and Villarama, Jr., JJ.,concur.
Castro,
Judgment affirmed with modifications.

173
173
People vs. Jumawan

Notes.Thecrimeofrapeisnolongertobefoundunder
Title Eleven of the Revised Penal Code, or crimes against
chastity; As per Republic Act No. 8353, or the AntiRape
Law of 1997, the crime of rape has been reclassified as a
crime against persons. (People vs. Lindo, 627 SCRA 519
[2010])
Thecommissionofrapeisnothinderedbytimeorplace
as in fact it can be committed even in the most public of
places.(Id.)
o0o
Copyright 2015 Central Book Supply, Inc. All rights reserved.

People vs. Jumawan PDF

Diunggah oleh

Informasi Dokumen

Judul Asli

Hak Cipta

Format Tersedia

Bagikan dokumen Ini

Bagikan atau Tanam Dokumen

Opsi Berbagi

Apakah menurut Anda dokumen ini bermanfaat?

Apakah konten ini tidak pantas?

Hak Cipta:

Format Tersedia

People vs. Jumawan PDF

Diunggah oleh

Hak Cipta:

Format Tersedia

G.R.No.187495.April21,2014.

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiffappellee, vs.

People vs. Jumawan

be committed by a man against his wife within or outside the

act of sexual intimacy with him is always obligatory or at least,

People vs. Jumawan

incapacitated to fulfill an essential marital obligation. But he

Same; Same; Same; Equal Protection of the Laws; To treat

People vs. Jumawan

including sexual and reproductive health, free of coercion,

have been plainly overlooked, misunderstood, or misapplied, the

because he/she is deprived of reason or otherwise unconscious or

People vs. Jumawan

Same; Same; Denials; Between the accusedappellants alibi

Same; Same; Marital Rape; Husbands are reminded that

People vs. Jumawan

AUTOMATIC REVIEW of a decision of the Court of

Associate Justices Edgardo A. Camello and Rodrigo F. Lim, Jr.,

other information which tend to establish or compromise her identity,

People vs. Jumawan

and feloniously have carnal knowledge with the private

The accusedappellant was arrested upon a warrant

People vs. Jumawan

The accusedappellant was thereafter rearraigned. He

flourish was not as fervent as KKKs dedication. Even the

People vs. Jumawan

the bed. Her reclusive behavior prompted him to ask

shouting: [D]ont do that to me because Im not feeling

People vs. Jumawan

them back. Determined to get away, MMM leaned against

People vs. Jumawan

dont do that to Mama because we are in front of you.[58]

plied:[Y]our father is a beast and animal, he again forced

People vs. Jumawan

rites, the accusedappellant and KKK had sexual

People vs. Jumawan

People vs. Jumawan

appellee, through the Office of the Solicitor General,

Womans Right of Privacy, 11 Golden Gate U. L. Rev., p. 725 (1981).

People vs. Jumawan

and Katherine M. Schelong, Domestic Violence and the State:

[T]he husband cannot be guilty of a rape committed by himself

woman not his wife.[93] In those jurisdictions, rape is

in People v. Liberta, Court of Appeals of New York, 474 N.E. 2D 567

Julie Allison and Lawrence Wrightsman, Rape, The

Misunderstood Crime, United States, Sage Publications, Inc., p. 87

People vs. Jumawan

Forum, National Electronic Network on Violence Against Women, p. 2

marital rape. The decision, which also renounced Hales

People vs. Jumawan

Understanding the Response of Survivors and Service Providers.

global concerns.[107] The country also committed, among

In compliance with the foregoing international

action=mnuactual_contents&ap=j8040&p=y, last accessed on April 1,

People vs. Jumawan

The Legislature then pursued the enactment of laws to

propagate gender equality. In 1997, R.A. No. 8353

penalty:Provided, That the crime shall not be extinguished or the

Read together with Section 1 of the law, which

The explicit intent to outlaw marital rape is deducible

People vs. Jumawan

MR. DAMASING: So if the husband is guilty of sexual

People vs. Jumawan