People Vs Jumawan

SUBJECT: CASE TOPIC: DATE MADE: DIGEST MAKER:
CRIMINAL LAW 2 MARITAL RAPE 5/15/2023 Jerico Cruz

CASE NAME: People vs Edgar Jumawan
G.R. NO. No. 187495
CASE DATE: April 21, 2014
FACTS:
Accused-appellant and his wife, KKK, were married on October 18, 1975. They Iived together since then and
raised their four (4) children as they put up several businesses over the years.
However, in 1997, he started to be brutal in bed. He would immediately remove her panties and, sans any
foreplay, insert her penis in her vagina. His abridged method of lovemaking was physically painful for her so
she would resist his sexual ambush but he would threaten her into submission.
Once in the bedroom, KKK changed into a duster and fixed the matrimonial bed but she did not lie thereon
with the accused-appellant and instead, rested separately in a cot near the bed. Her reclusive behavior
prompted him to ask angrily: "Why are you lying on the cot?” and to instantaneously order: "You transfer
here to our bed."
KKK insisted to stay on the cot and explained that she had headache and abdominal pain due to her
forthcoming menstruation. Her reasons did not appease him and he got angrier. He rose from the bed,
lifted the cot and threw it against the wall causing KKK to fall on the floor. Terrified, KKK stood up from
where she fell, took her pillow and transferred to the bed.
The accused-appellant then lay beside KKK and not before long, expressed his desire to copulate with her by
tapping his fingers on her lap. She politely declined by warding off his hand and reiterating that she was not
feeling well.
The accused-appellant again asserted his sexual yearning and when KKK tried to resist by holding on to her
panties, he pulled them down so forcefully they tore on the sides. KKK stayed defiant by refusing to bend
her legs.
The accused-appellant then 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: "[D]on 't do that to me because I'm
not feeling well."
On February 19, 1999, KKK executed a Complaint-Affidavit, alleging that her husband, the accused-
appellant, raped her at 3 :00 a.m. of December 3, 1998 at their residence in Phase 2, Villa Ernesto, Gusa,
Cagayan de Oro City, and that on December 12, 1998, the accused-appellant boxed her shoulder for
refusing to have sex with him.
ISSUE/S:
WON there are marital rape. [YES]
The Supreme Court held that husbands do not have property rights over their wives’ bodies. Sexual
intercourse, albeit within the realm of marriage, if not consensual, is rape.
Violation of equal protection clause

The Court ruled that to 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 equal protection clause.
The Court found that there is no rational basis for distinguishing between marital rape and non-marital
rape. The various rationales which have been asserted in defense of the exemption are either based upon
archaic notions about the consent and property rights incident to marriage or are simply unable to
withstand even the slightest scrutiny.
The Court declared the marital exemption for rape in the New York statute to be unconstitutional.
Said exemption states that a husband was endowed with absolute immunity from prosecution for the rape
of his wife. The privilege was personal and pertained to him alone. He had the marital right to rape his wife
but he will be liable when he aids or abets another person in raping her.
Moreover, Section 1 of RA 8353 penalizes the crime without regard to the rapist’s legal relationship with his
victim.
Implied consent theory untenable
According to the Court, it is now acknowledged that rape, as a form of sexual violence, exists within
marriage. A man who penetrates her wife without her consent or against her will commits sexual violence
upon her, and the Philippines, as a State Party to the CEDAW and its accompanying Declaration, defines and
penalizes the act as rape under R.A. No. 8353.
In 1981, the Philippines joined 180 countries in ratifying the United Nations Convention on the Elimination
of all Forms of Discrimination Against Women (UN-CEDAW).106 Hailed as the first international women's
bill of rights, the CEDAW is the first major instrument that contains a ban on all forms of discrimination
against women.
In compliance with the foregoing international commitments, the Philippines enshrined the principle of
gender equality in the 1987 Constitution specifically in Sections 11 and 14 of Article II thereof, thus:
Sec. 11. The State values the dignity of every human person and guarantees full respect for human rights.
Sec. 14. The State recognizes the role of women in nation-building, and shall ensure the fundamental
equality before the law of women and men. The Philippines also acceded to adopt and implement the
generally accepted principles of international law such as the CEDA W and its allied issuances.
Article II, Section 2. The Philippines renounces war as an instrument of national policy, and adopts the
generally accepted principles of international law as part of the law of the land and adheres to the policy of
peace, equality, justice, freedom, cooperation, and amity with all nations.
RULING:
WHEREFORE, all the foregoing considered, the Decision dated July 9, 2008 of the Court of Appeals in CA-
G.R. CR-HC No. 00353 is hereby AFFIRMED with MODIFICATIONS. Accused-appellant Edgar Jumawan is
found GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt of two (2) counts of RAPE and is sentenced to suffer the penalty of
reclusion perpetua for each count, without eligibility for parole. He is further ordered to pay the victim, KKK,
the amounts of PS0,000.00 as civil indemnity, ₱50,000.00 as moral damages, and ₱30,000.00 as exemplary
damages, for each count of rape. The award of damages shall earn legal interest at the rate of six percent
(6%) per annum from the finality of this judgment until fully paid.

People Vs Jumawan

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

People Vs Jumawan

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

People Vs Jumawan

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

SUBJECT: CASE TOPIC: DATE MADE: DIGEST MAKER:

CRIMINAL LAW 2 MARITAL RAPE 5/15/2023 Jerico Cruz

Violation of equal protection clause

Implied consent theory untenable

You might also like

Pfad - The Proxy pFad of © 2024 Garber Painting. All rights reserved.