Rape Victims Don't Need to Prove Resistance, According to the Supreme Court

(SPOT.ph) In a landmark decision, the Supreme Court of the Philippines has ruled that rape victims are no longer required to prove they displayed resistance in cases involving force, threat, or intimidation, following a bus driver's conviction for repeatedly raping his eldest daughter over the course of six years.

The father had been charged with the rape and sexual abuse of his eldest daughter from the age of nine until she turned sixteen. His conviction was affirmed by both the Regional Trial Court and the Court of Appeals before the case reached the Supreme Court. 

During the trial, the father's defense cited People v. Amogis (2011) and People v. Tionloc (2017), which argue that “resistance must be manifested and tenacious.” However, the Supreme Court rejected this, emphasizing that resistance is not necessary for proving rape when force, threat, or intimidation is present.

“The belief that if a woman does not resist, she consents to the rape is unacceptable in any civilized society,” the Supreme Court said in a 25-page ruling.

The bus driver was ultimately convicted based on the testimonies of his eldest daughter and his other daughters, who also reported years of physical abuse from him. Additionally, medical examinations revealed that the eldest daughter had “deep healed hymenal lacerations at three, four, seven, and nine o'clock positions.”

Such accounts are enough to convict offenders, the Supreme Court said, without forcing victims to carry the additional burden of proving resistance. The father was then found guilty beyond reasonable doubt.

Also read: What Constitutes as Rape? No Penetration Necessary, Supreme Court Rules

Resistance no longer the focus on rape cases

Before this ruling, there was widespread confusion regarding whether a rape victim must prove physical resistance. The Supreme Court has now made it clear that this is not a requirement, especially when they might be physically or emotionally incapable of fighting back.

In fact, the focus of rape trials should not be on how the victim responded but on the actions of the perpetrator.

“Rape is perhaps the only crime where the trial often focuses on the conduct of the victim rather than that of the accused,” the Supreme Court said. “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.”

The Supreme Court also pointed out that societal expectations that women must resist or fight back during sexual assault ignore the realities of fear. Many victims are unable to resist due to the threat of further harm or even death.

In cases of incestuous rape where the offender is the parent, the Supreme Court emphasized that the power dynamics make resistance even less likely: “Moral ascendency rendered it unnecessary for the prosecution to establish the presence of physical force and intimidation.”

Also read: Lewd Remarks in Work Chats Can Get You Terminated, Supreme Court Rules