Sie sind auf Seite 1von 2


G.R. No. 187495
April 21, 2014
Accused-Appellant Jumawan and his wife, Plaintiff- Appellee KKK, were married on October
18, 1975. They lived together with four children and had put up several businesses to which the
wife keenly flourished for their children. The accused, however do not have the same interest for
their business and their children. There were no marital problems between the two until in 1997,
when accused started to be brutal in bed- he would immediately remove her panties and insert his
penis to his vagina without any foreplay which was physically painful to her. He would threaten
her to submission upon any resistance. In 1998, they started quarrelling frequently as he
complained of her failure to attend to him. She was preoccupied with financial problems and
disobeyed his husbands command that she stay at home.
On the night of October 16, 1998, when the two were in the bedroom, KKK insisted to sleep on a
cot separate from their bed as she had headache and abdominal pains but accused forced her to
bed. She declined his expressed desire to have sex because of her sickness. Despite her
resistance, he forcefully pulled down her panties they tore on the sides. KKK refused to bend her
legs. He raised KKK's daster, stretched her legs apart and rested his own legs on them. She tried
to wrestle him away but he held her hands and succeeded in penetrating her. As he was carrying
out his carnal desires, KKK continued to protest by desperately shouting: "Don 't do that to me
because I'm not feeling well."
Their children heard of their mother crying and hysterically shouting. They rushed to the room
but accused stayed them away telling them not to interfere as that was a family trouble. They saw
KKK crouching and crying on top of the bed. KKK and the children had a hard way getting out
of the room as accused blocked the way.
Accused aggression recurred the following night. KKK would want to sleep with the children but
accused got infuriated. When she defied him, he grabbed her short pants and tore them apart. At
this point, their child MMM interfered, "Pa, don't do that to Mama because we are in front of
you." But he ordered them out of the room. The accused-appellant forcibly pulled KKK's short
pants and panties. He paid no heed to the pleas of his sick wife. After removing his own short
pants and briefs, he flexed her legs, held her hands, mounted her and forced himself inside her.
Once gratified, he put on his short pants and briefs, stood up, and went out of the room laughing
as he conceitedly uttered: "Its nice, that is what you deserve because you are a flirt or fond of
sex." He then retreated to the masters' bedroom.
Henceforth, KKK instituted a complaint against her husband for two counts of rape. The RTC
found accused Edgar Jumawan GUILTY" beyond reasonable doubt of the two (2) separate
charges of rape. The CA affirmed with modifications; hence, this petition.
1. Whether or not the implied consent theory applies?
2. Whether or not marital rape should have another standard with that of ordinary rape
3. Whether or not accused- appellant is guilty of rape?
1. No. The implied consent theory has been superseded by modern global principles on the equality
of rights between men and women and respect for human dignity established in various
International Conventions, i.e., CEDAW and the UN Declaration on the Elimination of Violence
Against Women (UN- EVAW).

In consideration of the CEDAW, the Philippines enacted RA No 8353 as it eradicated the notion
that marital rape cannot exist. The declaration identified marital rape as a species of sexual
violence. While the Family Code obligates spouses to love one another, it treats of affection and
sexual intimacy as expressions of love, both spontaneous and mutual, and not unilaterally
exacted by force or coercion.
2. To treat marital rape cases differently from non-marital ones in terms of elements of crimes and
the rules for their proof violates the equal protection clause. In defining the crime of rape, i.e.,
Section 1 of RA NO 8353, (a) rape, as traditionally known; (b) sexual assault; and (c) marital
rape or that where the victim is the perpetrator's own spouse- the law did not distinguish.
Women do not divest themselves of their right to control over and decide freely and responsibly
on matters of their sexuality by contracting marriage for the simple reason that human rights are
inalienable. Hence, the Court should apply the dictate of law as they cannot frame distinct
evidentiary rules for marital rape for being a violation of the rights of the victims.
3. The Court found no reason to disturb the findings of facts by the RTC, finding KKK and her
testimony credible and spontaneous.
The court found absence of consent to the sexual congress. Here, KKKs consent was wrestled
from her through force and intimidation both of which are established beyond moral certainty by
the prosecution through the testimony of KKK. The fact that she went to the room upon forceful
command by the accused does not imply consent. The significant point when consent must be
given is at that time when it is clear to the victim that her aggressor is soliciting sexual congress.
In this case, that point is when the accused-appellant tapped his fingers on her lap, a gesture
KKK comprehended to be an invitation for a sexual intercourse, which she refused. Indeed, the
testimonies of KKK, MMM and OOO coherently depicted that the accused-appellant, through
the use of force and intimidation, had non-consensual and forced carnal knowledge of his wife,
KKK on the nights of October 16 and 17, 1998. All the defenses of the accused lack considerable
merit, and the prosecution was able to rebut the presumption of his innocence.
Accused was adjudged guilty beyond reasonable doubt of two counts of rape.