27 Setyembre 2024, Biyernes
Thank you father God for another year.
Register now and vote in midterm polls
Aspirants file your certificate of candidacy on October 1-8,2024
Substitute candidates must be with same surname and political party
Partylist must file Certificate of Nomination and Acceptance
No to Divorce!!!
Get well soon Nanay Angelita Santiago-Lopez
No to SOGIE bill
PM for any hospital discharge problem
Resistance from victim not required in rape cases- Supreme Court
By Nidz Godino
“If law is to be interpreted such that woman claiming that she was raped must satisfactorily establish that she resisted sexual assault, we become complicit in perpetuating premise that men, as general rule, are entitled to free access to woman’s body at any given time and place because unless woman proves she resisted such act by actively resisting man’s advances, she will be deemed to have consented to it,” Supreme Court’s decision read, for rape cases committed by force, threat, or intimidation, victims are not required to show proof of resistance against act.
In decision of high court promulgated on June 26, 2024, it affirmed conviction of man who repeatedly raped and abused his daughter and resolved issue of whether resistance is element of crime of rape.
According to SC for cases of rape, it is enough that “force, threat, or intimidation existed and was strong enough to prevent victims from asserting their will.”
Accused is man committing violations of rape by sexual assault, according to Revised Penal Code; Acts of Lasciviousness under Special Protection of Children Against Abuse and Discrimination Act and child abuse under Anti-Violence Against Women and Children Act.
Accused, ZZZ, repeatedly raped and assaulted one of his daughters minor.
He also physically assaulted all four of his daughters.
ZZZ argued that rules with “iron hand” to his daughters to discipline them and denied rape allegations.
To cast doubt on allegations of sexual assault, accused cited former Supreme Court rulings he argued there should be resistance that is “manifested and tenacious.”
Despite his argument, SC found accused guilty of sexual assault, qualified rape and slight physical injuries, and was ordered to be imprisoned for 40 years.
Supreme Court, through Associate Justice Filomena Singh, struck down ZZZ’s argument.
High tribunal, citing jurisprudence, said such rape cases should be viewed in “light of victim’s perception and judgment” when crime was committed.
It stressed requiring proof of resistance from victim is also judging victim’s behavior by male standards.
“Pronouncements like this are not only contrary to prevailing doctrine, they also tend to reinforce misguided stereotypes that perpetuate gender bias and insensitivity,” it added.
Resistance of victims might also worsen impacts of rape, according to high tribunal, citing perpetrators of these acts are usually known by victims. Supreme Court added that these victims are already subject to other abuses.
“Resistance requirement thus compels woman to risk her life to protect her ‘virtue, honor, and chastity’ as if woman should believe that life is not worth living if she was abused without fight,” its ruling read.
“Right of women to autonomy and bodily integrity should be recognized and respected just as it is for men… there are cases that continue to invoke this line of reasoning compels Court to state in clear terms why this position, i.e., woman must prove that she tenaciously resisted man’s sexual assault before she can claim that she was raped, is both legally and morally wrong,” Supreme Court added.
ISKUP! 