RAPE

1. R.A. 8553.- EXPANDING DEFINITION OF RAPE, RECLASSIFYING

THE SAME AS A CRIME AGAINST PERSONS.
-repealing Art. 335 of Revised Penal Code by expanding definition of rape;
-introduced the concept of marital rape;
-reclassifying the same as a public crime.
A. Two (2) forms of rape:
i. Rape by sexual intercourse. – “organ rape” or “penile rape”. classic
concept of rape. This is the rape we all know.
2. Can be committed by a man against a woman by having carnal
knowledge. Thus, no rape if the victim is a man and the offender is a
woman. NOT GENDER FREE.
Under the following circumstance:
3. By using force or intimidation;
4. When the woman is deprived of reason or otherwise unconscious;
Deprived of reason.- refers to mental
abnormality, deficiency or retardation, which
includes (a) idiot (equivalent to two year old
child) (b) imbecile (7 year old); (c) moron or
feebleminded (12 year old); and (d) borderline
intelligence.
5. By means of fraudulent machination or grave abuse of authority;
(trickery)
6. When the woman is under 12 years of age or demented, even though
none of the circumstances above are present.
Statutory Rape. Without necessity of the
above circumstances. Does not matter if the
woman herself consented. If you have sexual
intercourse with a victim who is below 12 years
old – automatic rape. If 12 and above, there
must be presence of the above circumstances.
Otherwise, crime of seduction is
committed. The only subject of inquiry is
the age of woman and whether there was
carnal knowledge.

Demented.- refers to a person who has

dementia (schizophrenia) or insanity.
 When can we say that there is sexual intercourse or the
crime of rape is consummated? Mere touching of either labia
majora or minora of the pudendum by an erect penis capable of
penetration consummates the crime. Thus, complete penetration of
woman’s vagina is not necessary. As long as, the lips of the
woman’s genital is touched with not FULL PENETRATION the crime
of rape by sexual intercourse is consummated. Otherwise,
Attempted Rape or Acts of Lasciviousness is committed, depending
the intent of the offender to copulate. NO FRUSTRATED RAPE.

i. Rape by Sexual Assault.- “instrument or object rape”.

7. Unlike 1st form of rape, this is GENDER FREE. Hence, it can be
committed by either sex against any sex i.e. man against man; woman
against woman; man against woman; and woman against man.
8. Committed by a PERSON by inserting his penis into another’s person
mouth or anal orifice, or any instrument into the genital or anal orifice of
another person.
9. For a charge for rape by sexual assault with use of one’s finger to
prosper, there should be evidence of at least the slightest penetration of the
sexual organ and not merely a brush or graze of its surface. Thus, it requires
that the assault be specifically done through “INSERTION” into the genital or
anal orifice of the victim.

10. MARITAL RAPE.CHANGES MADE BY R.A. 8553.

Before the amendment made by R.A. 8553, married women cannot allege
that they have been raped by their husband since by as his wife it is your
duty to give the “NEEDS” of your husband, in effect you give your consent
to be raped. NOT ANYMORE.
Husband can be held liable for marital rape since Art. 266-A of RPC uses
the word “man” in defining rape. Rape can be committed WITHOUT regard
to the rapist’s legal relationship with his victim. As long as there is
violence, intimidation, unconscious in short DID NOT GIVE CONSENT,
marital rape is committed.

11. RECLASSIFYING RAPE AS PUBLIC CRIME. Prior amendment of the

law on rape, a complaint must be filed by the offended woman. If the victim
is minor, her parents. Rape was part of Private Crimes such as concubinage,
adultery, seduction, acts of lasciviousness, abduction. SINCE RAPE IS NOT A
PRIVATE CRIME ANYMORE, IT CAN BE PROSECUTED EVEN IF THE WOMAN
DOES NOT FILE A COMPLAINT.

12. INCESTOUS RAPE.- Supreme Court coined this term. In incestuous

rape of minor, actual force or intimidation need not even be employed where

2
the overpowering moral influence of appellant, who is private complainant’s
father would suffice. Thus, even if there is no actual force or intimidation,
there is rape if it the accused was the father of the victim.

13. COMMON DEFENSE IN RAPE.

A. Sweetheart Theory.- Where accused interposed that sexual
intercourse was with the consent of the victim since they were lovers. The
sweetheart defense must be proven by compelling evidence: first, that the
accused and the victim were lovers; and, second, that she consented to the
alleged sexual relations. The second is as important as the first because the
Supreme Court has held often enough that love is not a license for lust. It
must be corroborated by documentary, testimonial, or other evidence.
Usually, these are letters, notes, photos, mementos, or credible testimonies
of those who know the lovers.

B. Tenacious Resistance.- Failure to shout should not be taken against

the victim. It is not necessary for the victim to sustain physical injuries. She
need not kick, bite, hit or scratch the offender with her fingernails to prove
that she had been defensive. Lack of resistance does not automatically mean
that the complainant consented to the sexual act, especially when the
accused had intimidated said person into submission.

C. Rape done in Public.- It is unlikely that a man would rape a woman

publicly. Rape cases, however, are not always committed in seclusion. It is
settled that lust is no respecter of time or place, and rape defies constraint of
time and space.

D. WOMAN’S HONOR DOCTRINE.- “No young Filipina of decent

repute would publicly admit that she has been sexually abused,
unless that is the truth, for it is her natural instinct to protect
honor”. Doctrine first surfaced sometime in 1960 in People v. Taño, Usually,
rape cases are decided based on the credibility of the private complainant
since most of the rape cases were committeed in seclusion. Thus, normally it
is the victim alone who has personal knowledge of the circumstances
surrounding rape. However, in 17 January 2018 this doctrine was abandoned
in the case of People of the Philippines v. Juvy D. Amarela wherein the
Supreme Court declared therein that to adhere to such doctrine particularly
in this day and age, not only puts the accused at an unfair disadvantage.
The opinion borders on the fallacy of non sequitur.

The doctrine was introduced way back 1960’s when the factual setting
back then would have been appropriate to say natural to be reluctant
in disclosing a sexual assault. Filipina today are not the Maria Clara

3
 stereotype of a demure and reserved woman since the realities today
point to the woman’s dynamic role in society.