Some information about Rape

FACTS: 

            Maria, a 16-year old girl, bought lemon from the store 60 meters away from the house. On her way home, Pedro and Juan invited her to go to the waiting shed with them. She refused and they followed her to her house.

            She went to her room and the two men were able to enter her room by climbing up the window. She attempted to go out but they pulled her back. Juan undressed her and inserted his penis into her vagina while standing. She tried to push them away but she was easily overcome by the two men. The sexual assault lasted about one minute and one went home. Pedro took his turn and had sexual intercourse with her in the same standing position. The sexual assault lasted about three minutes.

            The accused, Pedro and Juan aver that the testimony of Maria is not credible considering that at the time she was raped, she never resisted her rapist nor call for help. They were not armed and she was not threatened. There was no showing of force or intimidation.

ISSUE:

             Is the absence of external injury negates the use of force? Does this mean that Maria consented and thus no crime of rape happened?

ANSWER:

             In a long line of cases, the court held that absence of external injuries does not negate rape, to wit: 

Absence of external injuries in the body of the rape victim is not essential to the conviction of her attackers. (People vs Davatos, 229 SCRA 647)

 

Rule is settled that absence of external signs or physical injuries does not negate the commission of the crime of rape. (People v. Querido, 229 SCRA 745).

 

Absence of external signs or physical injuries does not negate the commission of rape since proof of injuries is not an essential element of the crime (People v. Casipit, 232 SCRA 638).

 

Absence of external signs of injury does not necessarily negate the commission of rape, especially when the victim was so intimidated by the offender into submission. (People v. Bautista, 236 SCRA 102).

 

The Court has time and again held that the absence of any external signs or physical injuries does not negate the commission of the crime of rape. (People v. Alimon, 257 SCRA 658).

 

Absence of external injuries, in fact, does not negate the use of force or intimidation. It bears stressing that the absence of struggle on the part of the rape victim does not necessarily negate the commission of the offense. Failure to shout for help or fight back cannot be equated to voluntary submission to the criminal intent of the accused. xxx Fear, in lieu of force or violence, is subjective. Addressed to the mind of the victim of rape, its presence cannot be tested by any hard-and-fast rule but must instead be viewed in the light of the perception and judgment of the victim at the time of the commission of the crime. In addition, as the Court has repeatedly observed, people act differently to a given stimulus or type of situation, and there is no standard form of behavioral response that can be expected from those who are confronted with a strange, startling or frightening experience. (People v. Lustre, 386 Phil. 390).

 Furthermore, Republic Act No. 8353 provides how the crime of rape is committed:

             Article 266-A. Rape: When And How Committed. Rape is Committed –

1. By a man who shall have carnal knowledge of a woman under any of the following:

a.       Through force, threat, or intimidation;

b.       When the offended party is deprived of reason or otherwise unconscious;

c.       By means of fraudulent machination or grave abuse of authority; and

d.       When the offended party is under twelve (12) years of age or is demented, even though none of the circumstances mentioned above be present.

2. By any person who, under any of the circumstances mentioned in paragraph 1 hereof, shall commit an act of sexual assault by inserting his penis into another person's mouth or anal orifice, or any instrument or object, into the genital or anal orifice of another person. 

...xxx... 

Article 266-D. Presumptions. Any physical overt act manifesting resistance against the act of rape in any degree from the offended party, or where the offended party is so situated as to render her/him incapable of giving valid consent, may be accepted as evidence in the prosecution of the acts punished under Article 266-A.

            Any physical overt act manifesting resistance against the rape in any degree from the victim is admissible as evidence of lack of consent. Tenacious resistance, however, is not required. Neither is a determined and persistent physical struggle on the part of the victim necessary. The lawmakers took note of the fact that rape victims cannot mount a physical struggle in cases where they were gripped by overpowering fear or subjugated by moral authority. Article 266-D tempered the case law requirement of physical struggle by the victim with the victim’s fear of the rapist or incapacity to give valid consent. Thus, the law now provides that resistance may be proved by any physical overt act in any degree from the offended party (People vs. Dulay, GRN 144344-68, July 23, 2002).

Practicum II Research Paper No. 3 submitted to Judge Iluminado Meneses on February 6, 2009.