People of the Philippines v. Edgar Edgar Jumawan G.R. No. 18749! "pril #1! #$14 %a&ts'
On October 16, 1998, the accused-appellant, his wife KKK and their children went about their nightly routine. Soon after, the accused-appellant fetched KKK and bid her to come with him to their conugal bedroom in the third floor of the house. KKK complied. Once in the bedroom, KKK changed into a daster and fi!ed the matrimonial bed but she did not lie thereon with the accused-appellant and instead, rested separately in a cot near the bed. "e initially ordered her to sleep beside him in their conugal bed by #iolently throwing the cot where she was resting. $n order not to aggra#ate his temper, KKK obeyed. On the bed, he insinuated for them to ha#e se!. %hen she reected his ad#ances due to abdominal pain and headache, his re&uest for intimacy transformed into a stubborn demand. KKK held her panties but the accused-appellant forcibly pulled them down causing it to tear apart. She was not feeling well so she begged him to stop. "e fle!ed her two legs apart, gripped her hands, mounted her, rested his own legs on hers and succeeded in ha#ing se!ual intercourse with her. On October 1', 1998, after the appalling episode in the conugal bedroom the pre#ious night, KKK decided to sleep in the children(s bedroom. )he accused-appellant barged into the room and berated her for refusing to go with him to their conugal bedroom. %hen KKK insisted to stay in the children(s bedroom, the accused-appellant got angry and pulled her up. ***(s attempt to pacify the accused-appellant further enraged him. "e ordered the children to go out of the room and thereafter proceeded to force KKK into into se! se!ua uall inte interco rcours urse. e. "e forcib forcibly ly pulle pulled d dow down n her her short short pants pants and and p
anties anties as
KKK begged that her body is aching and that she cannot withstand se!. )he accusedappellant remo#ed his shorts and briefs, spread KKK(s legs apart, held her hands, mounted her and succeeded in ha#ing se!ual intercourse with her. )he trial court con#icted him. )he + affirmed the trial courts decision.
(ssues'
1. %hether or not the accused-appellant can be ac&uitted based on the irre#ocable implied consent theory that consent to copulation is presumed between cohabiting husband and wife unless the contrary is pro#ed/ 0. %hether or not the standards for determining the presence of consent or lac thereof be adusted on the ground that se!ual community is a mutual right and obligation between husband and wife Ruling'
1. 2o. )he ancient customs and ideologies from which the irrevo&a)le implied &onsent theor* evolved have alread* )een superseded )* modem glo)al prin&iples on the e+ualit* of rights )etween men and women and respe&t for human dignit* established in #arious international con#entions, such as the
+34%. )he 5hilippines, as State 5arty to the +34%, recognied that a change in the traditional role of men as well as the role of women in society and in the family is needed to achie#e full e&uality between them. ccordingly, the country #owed to tae all appropriate measures to modify the social and cultural patterns of conduct of men and women, with a #iew to achie#ing the elimination of preudices, customs and all other practices which are based on the idea of the inferiority or the superiority of either of the se!es or on stereotyped roles for men and women. One of such measures is 7.. 2o 8 insofar as it eradicated the archaic notion that marital rape cannot e!ist because a husband has absolute proprietary rights o#er his wife(s body and thus her consent to e#ery act of se!ual 2.
intimacy with him is always obligatory or at least, presumed. 2o. )o treat marital rape cases differently from non-marital rape cases in terms of the elements that constitute the crime and in the rules for their proof, infringes on the e&ual protection clause. ,he -onstitutional right to e+ual prote&tion of the laws ordains that similar su)e&ts should not )e treated differentl* , so
as to gi#e undue fa#or to some and unustly discriminate against others: no person or class of persons shall be denied the same protection of laws, which is enoyed, by other persons or other classes in lie circumstances.