ALBURO ALBURO AND ASSOCIATES LAW OFFICES ALBURO ALBURO AND ASSOCIATES LAW OFFICES

contact

MON-SAT 8:30AM-5:30PM

Marital Rape (Insights from People of the Philippines v. Jumawan)

Photo from Unsplash | Vitaly Gariev

The following post does not create a lawyer-client relationship between Alburo Alburo and Associates Law Offices (or any of its lawyers) and the reader. It is still best for you to engage the services of a lawyer or you may directly contact and consult Alburo Alburo and Associates Law Offices to address your specific legal concerns, if there is any.

Also, the matters contained in the following were written in accordance with the law, rules, and jurisprudence prevailing at the time of writing and posting, and do not include any future developments on the subject matter under discussion.


AT A GLANCE:

Husbands do not have property rights over their wives’ bodies. Sexual intercourse, albeit within the realm of marriage, if not consensual, is rape. This is the clear State policy expressly legislated in Section 266-A of the Revised Penal Code (RPC), as amended by Republic Act No. 8353 or the Anti-Rape Law of 1997.


Can a husband be prosecuted for rape committed against his wife? Yes.

No documented case on marital rape has ever reached the Supreme Court until the case of People of the Philippines v. Edgar Jumawan (G.R. No. 187495, April 21, 2014).

 

In Jumawan, the Supreme Court discussed the history and origins of marital rape, as well as when it was officially recognized. The Court noted that the explicit intent to criminalize marital rape can be inferred from the records of the deliberations of the 10th Congress regarding the progenitors of Republic Act No. 8353, specifically House Bill No. 6265 and Senate Bill No. 650.

 

The paradigm shift on marital rape in the Philippine jurisdiction is further affirmed by R.A. No. 9262, otherwise known as the Anti-Violence Against Women and their Children, which regards rape within marriage as a form of sexual violence that may be committed by a man against his wife within or outside the family abode.

 

The Court held that the definition of rape in Section 1 of R.A. No. 8353 pertains to: (a) rape, as traditionally known; (b) sexual assault; and (c) marital rape or that where the victim is the perpetrator’s own spouse. The single definition for all three forms of the crime shows that the law does not distinguish between rape committed in wedlock and those committed without a marriage. Hence, the law affords protection to women raped by their husband and those raped by any other man alike.

 

A marriage license should not be viewed as a license for a husband to forcibly rape his wife with impunity. A married woman 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 such consent from her in case she refuses.

 

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

 

In fine, since the law does not separately categorize marital rape and non-marital rape nor provide 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 non-marital 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 the aggressor is the woman’s own legal husband. The elements and quantum of proof that support a moral certainty of guilt in rape cases should apply uniformly regardless of the legal relationship between the accused and his accuser.


Click here to subscribe to our newsletter

Alburo Alburo and Associates Law Offices specializes in business law and labor law consulting. For inquiries regarding legal services, you may reach us at info@alburolaw.com, or dial us at (02)7745-4391/ 09175772207/ 09778050020.

All rights reserved.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

0 Shares
Share
Tweet
Share