Instructions: Using online sources, find one (1) decided case by the Philippines

Supreme Court applying any of the three gender related laws, the Anti-VAWC Act,
the Anti-Rape Law, or the Anti-Sexual Harassment Act.

Case Title: PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee, vs. EDGAR

JUMAWAN, Accused-Appellant.

Online source:
https://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2014/apr2014/gr_187495_2014.html

Facts:
On October 18, 1975, the accused-appellant married his wife, KKK. They have been
married since then and have raised four (4) children while running multiple
enterprises.
KKK filed a Complaint-Affidavit on February 19, 1999, alleging that her husband, the
accused-appellant, raped her at 3:00 a.m. On December 3, 1998, at their residence
in Phase 2, Villa Ernesto, Gusa, Cagayan de Oro City, the accused-appellant boxed
her shoulder for refusing to have sex with him, and on December 12, 1998, the
accused-appellant boxed her shoulder again for refusing to have sex with him.
On June 11, 1999, the Cagayan de Oro City Prosecutor's Office issued a Joint
Resolution finding probable cause for grave threats, minor physical injuries, and rape
and urging that the proper criminal information be filed against the accused-
appellant.
On July 16, 1999, two Information for rape were filed before the RTC, which were
docketed as Criminal Case Nos. 99-6689 and 99-669, respectively. The following
charges were made against the accused-appellant in Criminal Case No. 99-668:
That on or about 10:30 p.m. on October 9, 1998, in Gusa, Cagayan de Oro City,
Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named
accused wilfully, unlawfully, and feloniously had carnal knowledge with the private
complainant, her [sic] wife, against the latter[']s will.

Issue of the case:

This case is an automatic review of the Court of Appeals' (CA) decision in CA-G.R.
CR-HC No. 00353, which upheld the April 1, 2002 judgment of the Regional Trial
Court (RTC) of Cagayan de Oro City, Branch 19, convicted him in Criminal Case
Nos. 99-668 and 99-669, and sentenced him to reclusion perpetua for each count.
Ruling of the case:
 The RTC Decision

The Court finds accused Edgar Jumawan "GUILTY" beyond a reasonable doubt of
the two (2) separate charges of rape and sentences him to the penalty of reclusion
perpetua for each, to pay complainant [P]50,000.00 in each case as moral damages,
indemnify complainant in the sum of (P]75,000.00 in each case, [P]50,000.00 as
exemplary damages, and to pay the costs.

 The CA Decision

The CA, in a decision dated July 9, 2008, upheld the RTC's decision in its entirety.
The CA ruled that the alteration of the original information was permissible under
Section 14, Rule 110 of the Rules of Criminal Procedure. Furthermore, the accused-
appellant was not disadvantaged by the amendment because he was re-arrested on
the amended charges.
The CA decided that the prosecution was able to show, beyond a reasonable doubt,
all of the elements of rape under R.A. by the victim's direct evidence and the
corroborative testimonies of MMM and OOO under R.A No.  8353. Through using
force and intimidation, the accused-appellant had carnal knowledge of KKK.
The CA also rejected the accused-argument appellant's that because he and KKK
are husband and wife with mutual obligations of and right to sexual intercourse, there
must be convincing physical evidence or manifestations of the alleged force and
intimidation used against KKK, such as bruises, because a medical certificate is not
required to prove rape. Physical evidence of external injuries is not required to
charge and convict a person for rape, according to the CA; what is required is that
the victim was forced to have sexual intercourse with the accused.
Furthermore, the CA stated that the fact that KKK and the accused-appellant are
married only adds to the authenticity of KKK's allegations because no reasonable
wife would accuse her husband of rape if it were not genuine. KKK adequately
explained the delay in filing the rape allegation when she indicated that she only
learned that a wife can prosecute her husband with rape after the fiscal examining
her separate complaint for grave threats and bodily injuries informed her of it.
Finally, the CA disregarded the accused-alibi appellant's due to a lack of solid proof
that he could not have been at his apartment in Cagayan de Oro City at the time of
the offenses, given that Dangcagan, Bukidnon, where he allegedly resided, is only
around four or five hours away.   As a result, the appealed Judgment is hereby
AFFIRMED in view of the aforementioned.
The Court stated in its July 6, 2009 Court Resolution that the parties may file their
respective additional papers if they so want. The appellee, through the Office of the
Solicitor General, said in a Manifestation and Motion dated September 4, 2009 that it
wishes to adopt its Brief before the CA. The accused-appellant, through counsel,
filed his Supplemental Brief on April 16, 2012, contending that he was not in
Cagayan de Oro City when the alleged rape events occurred, and that the existence
of force, menace, or intimidation is negated by: (a) KKK's voluntary act of
accompanying him to the conjugal bedroom on October 16, 1998; (b) KKK's failure to
put up resistance or seek assistance from the authorities; and (c) the lack of a
medical certificate as well as blood evidence in the KKK's panties.
 The Court’s Decision

Rape is a crime that is universally condemned because it degrades a woman's worth

and dignity as a human being. It is unconcerned with the passage of time, location,
age, physical state, or social status. It can occur anywhere, at any time, and to
anyone. Even, as illustrated in this example, to a wife who was victimized by her
husband, who swore to be her refuge from abuse, inside her time-honored citadel,
the family home. Our rape laws provide the atonement that wives seek from their
sexually coercive husbands, as stated in this proclamation.
Husbands are reminded once again that marriage is not a license to rape their
women forcibly. Marriage does not give a husband ownership of his wife's body. She
does not lose her human right to exclusive autonomy over her own body when she
marries, and she can thus lawfully grant or withdraw her consent to marital coitus. A
spouse who is enraged by his wife's unwillingness to engage in sexual intercourse
cannot use criminal force or coercion to force her to comply. He can seek help from
the Family Courts, which can assess whether her rejection is due to psychological
incompetence, resulting in the marriage being annulled.
Because it is the spiritual and biological connection that fulfills the marital goal of
procreation, sexual intimacy is an essential aspect of marriage. It implies reciprocal
love and self-giving, and as a result, it only considers mutual sexual participation,
never sexual compulsion or imposition.
Despite the noble intentions of this proclamation, the Court is aware that dangerous
personalities may use it to harass innocent husbands. In this regard, it should be
noted that protections in the criminal justice system are in place to detect and
investigate fake or fraudulent marital rape reports, and anyone who makes false and
malicious accusations will be held accountable under the RPC and/or other laws.
WHEREFORE, in light of the foregoing, the Court of Appeals' Decision dated July 9,
2008 in CA-G.R.  CR-HC No. 00353 is AFFIRMED with MODIFICATIONS. Edgar
Jumawan, the accused-appellant, is found GUILTY beyond a reasonable doubt on
two (2) counts of RAPE and is sentenced to reclusion perpetua for each count, with
no possibility of parole. He is also sentenced to pay PS0,000.00 in civil indemnity,
50,000.00 in moral damages, and 30,000.00 in exemplary damages to the victim,
KKK, for each instance of rape. From the date of finality of this decision until it is fully
paid, the award of damages will accumulate legal interest at the rate of 6% (6%) per
annum.
 INDIVIDUAL REFLECTION OUTPUT ABOUT THE CASE

The case number G.R. No. 187495 is a case related to the Republic Act
(R.A.) No. 8353 or the Anti-Rape Law of 1997. After reading the case, I consider
the offender as heterosexual, and I can personally claim that the offender is
masculine because he uses his strength to harm the victim whenever she refuses to
participate in sexual intercourse with the offender. To protect the victim's privacy, the
victim's real name, personal circumstances, and other information that could be used
to establish or compromise her identity, as well as the identities of their immediate
family or household members, were not revealed, and fictitious initials are used
instead. The victim was married to the offender since October 18, 1975, and already
had children with him.

While reading, I found out that the offender forcibly removed his wife's short
pants and underwear, forced her to spread her legs wide, and held her hands with
force despite the victim's repeated requests that she did not want to have sex with
him. It was also reported that if she refused to have sex with him, he would box her
shoulder. The offender's attributes make him a potential danger to society. Also,
when he presented his alibi, he stated that his wife (victim) is having an affair and
that he was not at home at the time of the incident. According to what I have read,
the perpetrator changed his side of the tale at court to make it appear as if he was
the real victim in order to come clean. He also gas-lighted the victim by telling her
that because they are married, he can have sex with her whenever he wants, even
without the victim's consent. The offender also told the victim that if she does not
have sex with him, he can just pay another woman to satisfy him. This, in my
opinion, is really concerning, and he poses a possible threat to society because, if he
can do such awful things to his wife, he can do it to other women, particularly family
members.

The presence of the offender's children apparently did not pacify the accused-
appellant, who exclaimed, "Even in front of you, I can have sex with your mother
since I'm the head of the household," before ordering his daughters to leave the
room. Fearful, the girls obeyed and hurried to the stairwell, where they heard their
helpless mother's cries reverberate through the creaking bed. The offender sees
women as objects that he can just use whenever he wants, he even told his wife "a
woman must stay in the house and only good in bed”. He will guilt-trip his wife for not
being submissive to his desires. This is clearly sex stereotyping and sex-role
stereotyping because the victim is supposed to appear submissive just because the
offender is the head of the household, so she should submit herself even if she does
not want to do what he wants, and he wants his wife to stay and home and have sex
with him all the time.

To sum it up, this work broadened my understanding of rape and marriage. I

understand that rape can occur in many ways, including rape by your own husband,
lover, colleague, boss, friend, or family member. While reading the case file, I
became extremely angry because women are always perceived to be weak and
submissive, especially when it comes to men's desires. It bothers me that some men
use marriage as an excuse to abuse their wives and to make women feel guilty for
refusing to do what they want. As a single mother, it reminded me of how important it
is to protect my daughter from evil people like the criminal, even if it is her own father
and future stepfather.

The knowledge I've gained today will serve as a wake-up call for me in the
future when it comes to finding a partner who will respect me and my daughter.
Furthermore, the information I gained from this activity reminds me that I should not
be frightened to speak up for my human rights. Lastly, this activity taught us that
even after marriage, we should learn to value our partners' well-being. Yes, marriage
provides us all the freedom to ask our partners for pleasure, but it does not mean we
will abuse that label. I believe that respect must be instilled in both sides, and even if
you are married, we should still seek their consent.