Victim need not prove she resisted rape – SC

THE Supreme Court has ruled that a rape victim need not prove that she resisted in cases of rape committed by force, threat, or intimidation. In a decision written by Associate Justice Maria Filomena Singh, the Supreme Court's Third Division affirmed the conviction of a man who was charged with the rape and sexual abuse of his daughter from when she was 9 years old until she was 16 — from 2009 to 2015. The Regional Trial Court found the man guilty. The Court of Appeals affirmed his conviction, prompting an appeal with the high court. In upholding the man's conviction, the Supreme Court resolved the issue of whether resistance is an element of rape. It pointed out that under Article 266-A of the Revised Penal Code, there is rape when sexual intercourse is done through force, threat, or intimidation; when the victim is unconscious or deprived of reason; through fraud or abuse of authority; or when the victim is under 12 years old or is demented. The Court ruled that in rape cases committed through force, threat, or intimidation, it is enough that such force, threat, or intimidation existed and was strong enough to prevent the victims from asserting their will, determined from the victims' perspective. It clarified that previous decisions stating that a woman cannot claim to be a rape victim unless she resisted are contrary to current doctrine. The Court said these pronouncements also tend to reinforce misguided stereotypes that perpetuate gender bias and insensitivity. The right of women to autonomy and bodily integrity should be recognized and respected. It pointed out the belief that if a woman does not resist, then she consents to the rape, which is unacceptable in any civilized society. It presumes that men are entitled to free access to a woman's body at any given time and place. The high court said requiring proof of resistance also ignores the fact that women, as traditional victims of rape, have been conditioned to live for the male gaze and to believe that it is impolite to be assertive. It also dismisses the fact that resisting a man's sexual advances can harm a woman or get her killed. "Rape is perhaps the only crime where the trial often focuses on the conduct of the victim instead of that of the accused. The need to prove lack of consent often becomes a question of the victim's behavior, her history, and her conduct before, during, and after the rape as implying that some women can be 'bad enough' to be raped while others, because of their background, choices, and conduct, are simply lying when they claim that they were raped. It is time to strike down such uninformed and ignorant views," the Court stressed. The Court added that in many instances of rape, the offender is someone the victim knows, such as in incestuous rape. In such cases, a child cannot be expected to resist her own father's abuse. Not only is the father physically superior, but he also asserts moral authority over the child, who has been raised and taught to obey their parents. Thus, when the offender is the father and the victim is his minor child, moral ascendancy or influence replaces the element of violence or intimidation, the Supreme Court said.