Inalienable right

Can a husband be criminally held liable of raping his wife? This is the question raised and answered in this case of Emma and Romy.

Emma met Romy at the farm of her father where Romy’s father was one of the laborers. After one year of courtship, they got married.

When their first child Nita was born, the couple put up a sari-sari store. Later, they engaged in several other businesses, particularly trucking, rice mill and hardware. Emma managed the businesses except the rice mill, which was supposed to be under Romy’s supervision with the help of a trusted employee, although in actuality he merely assisted by driving one of the trucks. Indeed, it was Emma who was keener to make their business flourish and actively managed them because she wanted to provide a comfortable life for their four children, two girls and two boys.

After almost 20 years of marriage, their businesses flourished so they bought a house and lot in a first-class subdivision located in the capital city of their province. Three of their children – daughters Nita, Elma and son, James – transferred residence there, while Romy, Emma and the other son Boy remained in their hometown. Emma shuttled between the two places, sometimes accompanied by Romy. Later on, however, she stayed in the city residence most days of the week, going to their hometown only to procure supplies but would return to the city on the same day.

During the first 20 years of their marriage, conjugal intimacy between the couple was both frequent and fulfilling. But after 22 years of marriage, Romy started to be brutal in bed, apparently because Emma opted to stay in the city. She would physically resist his sexual ambush but he would threaten her into submission.

Romy complained that Emma failed to attend to him and he wanted her to stay home because a “woman must stay in the house and be only good in bed.” But Emma disobeyed his wishes and focused on her goal of providing a good future for their children.

The two incidents of forced sexual intercourse happened as they were about to celebrate their 23rd wedding anniversary. In the first incident, Emma voluntarily went with Romy into their bedroom but chose to sleep in a cot beside the bed. Romy ordered her to sleep beside him, violently throwing the cot where she was resting. Emma obeyed so as not to aggravate his temper. But once in bed, Romy intimated for them to have sex. When she rejected his advances due to abdominal pain and headache, Romy insisted. No amount of resistance or begging stopped him until he was able to satisfy his lust.

The next night, Emma decided to sleep in the children’s bedroom. Romy barged into the room and berated Emma for refusing to sleep in their bedroom. When Emma insisted to stay in the children’s bedroom, Romy got mad. Nita’s attempt to pacify him further enraged Romy, who told her that as head of the family he could do whatever he wants to their mother. To assert his authority, he ordered the children to go out of the room and thereafter proceeded to force Emma into sexual intercourse. After that he dressed up and left the room as he chuckled, “It’s nice, that is what you deserve because you are a flirt and fond of sex.”

It took about four months before Emma filed a complaint for rape because it was only then that she learned that a husband forcing his wife to submit to sexual intercourse is considered rape. After the necessary preliminary investigation, two counts of rape were filed against Jimmy.

During trial, Emma testified and vividly recounted and accurately recollected the two incidents above set forth. Nita and Elma also testified and substantiated the significant points of their mother’s narration.

Romy, however, spun another tale. He said he was at their other house during those nights and that Emma merely fabricated the rape as her revenge because he took over the control and management of their businesses. Furthermore, he contended that there was implied consent on the part of Emma since they were legally married and cohabiting.

The RTC found the straightforward testimonies of the prosecution witnesses more credible than the inconsistent testimonies of Romy and his witness. Thus, the RTC convicted Romy of the crime of rape on two counts and sentenced him to reclusion perpetua on each count. This was affirmed by the Court of Appeals which ruled that the physical evidence of external injuries is not indispensable to prosecute and convict a person of rape. What is necessary is that the victim was forced to have sexual intercourse.

But Romy appealed to the Supreme Court, arguing that consent to copulation is presumed between cohabiting husband and wife unless the contrary is proved. Was Romy correct?

No. RA 8353 passed in 1997 reclassified rape as a crime against person and removed it from the ambit of crimes against chastity. The paradigm shift on marital rape in this jurisdiction is further affirmed by RA 9262 which regards rape within the marriage as a form of sexual violence that may be committed by a man against his wife. Clearly, it is now acknowledged that rape, as a form of sexual violence, exists within marriage. To treat marital rape cases differently from non-marital rape cases in terms of elements that constitute the crime and in the rules for their proof, infringes on the equal protection clause.

The human rights of women include their right to have control over and decide freely and responsibly on matters related to their sexuality, including sexual and reproductive health, free of coercion, discrimination and violence. Women do not divest themselves of such right by contracting marriage for the simple reason that human rights are inalienable (People vs. Jumawan, G.R. 187495, April 21, 2014).