The Anti-Rape Law of 1997 (which amended the previous definition of rape as defined in

the Revised Penal Code of 1930) defines the crime of rape as follows:

Article 266-A. Rape: When And How Committed. – Rape is committed:
1) By a man who shall have carnal knowledge of a woman under any of the following
circumstances:
a) Through force, threat, or intimidation;
b) When the offended party is deprived of reason or otherwise unconscious;
c) By means of fraudulent machination or grave abuse of authority; and
d) When the offended party is under twelve (12) years of age or is demented, even though
none of the circumstances mentioned above be present.
2) By any person who, under any of the circumstances mentioned in paragraph 1 hereof,
shall commit an act of sexual assault by inserting his penis into another person’s mouth or
anal orifice, or any instrument or object, into the genital or anal orifice of another person. [3]
Publication Information
14 Kansas Journal of Law and Public Policy 121 (2004)
Abstract
This article sets forth some preliminary issues and perspectives for the development of indigenous models of rape jurisprudence.
Part I examines the reasons for and importance of developing an indigenous jurisprudence of rape. Part II addresses tribal
jurisdiction issues, particularly the current limitations on tribal authority. Part III provides a historical context for the issue,
including examples of the role of colonization in the responses to sexual violence. Part IV shares some visions for the
development of a contemporary jurisprudence of rape for indigenous nations.

SC Affirms Rape Conviction of Sexagenarian

October 1, 2021
The Supreme Court has affirmed the conviction of a 67-year-old who raped his 12-year-
old granddaughter in 2008.
The SC dismissed the appeal of the accused and affirmed with modification the
Decision of the Court of Appeals (CA) which found him guilty of two counts of Rape
under Article 266-A, Paragraph 1(a) in relation to Article 266-B of the Revised Penal
Code (RPC).
The Court ruled that the Regional Trial Court (RTC), Branch 64 of Labo, Camarines
Norte, and the CA were correct in their assessment of the testimonies of the victim and
the accused-appellant. It held that the alleged inconsistencies in the victim’s testimony
“are understandable considering that she was still only a minor…at the time she testified
before the trial court.”
It further held that slightly conflicting statements of the minor will not undermine her
credibility or the veracity of her testimony. They will in fact tend to buttress rather than
impair their credibility as they erase any suspicion of rehearsed testimony.
“It is settled jurisprudence that testimonies of child-victims are given full weight and
credit, since when a woman or a girl-child says that she has been raped, she says in
effect all that is necessary to show that rape was indeed committed,” stressed the
Court. “We have consistently ruled that rape is committed when intimidation is used on
the victim, which includes moral intimidation or coercion,” it held further.
The SC also found unacceptable the accused-appellant’s contention that he could not
have sexually abused his victim since he could no longer have an erection due to his
old age. Accused-appellant did not present documentary evidence such as a medical
certificate to prove the physical impossibility of his having an erection and incapacity of
raping the victim. It stressed that his conviction was on the basis of the victim’s
“consistent and steadfast testimony, even under rigid cross-examination, pointing to him
as the one who despoiled her honor.”
The accused-appellant argued that he should be penalized under Section 5, Article III of
RA 7610, or the Special Protection of Children Against Child Abuse, Exploitation and
Discrimination Act, and that the mitigating circumstance of old age be applied in his
favor.
The RTC convicted the accused appellant for two counts of rape in relation to RA 7610
and sentenced him to reclusion perpetua on each
count. On appeal, the CA sustained the rape conviction and imposed a penalty
of reclusion perpetua but added “without eligibility for parole for each count.” It also
raised the amount from P50,000 to P100,000 each the civil indemnity, moral damages,
and exemplary damages, respectively, earlier awarded by the RTC.
In the Decision penned by Justice Ramon Paul L. Hernando, the Court’s Third Division
affirmed the Decision of the CA, but held the accused-appellant guilty of two counts of
Rape under Article 266-A, Paragraph 1(a) in relation to Article 266-B of the Revised
Penal Code (RPC). It deleted the correlation to RA 7610.
The SC pointed out that “there is a need to fix the error in the nomenclature of ZZZ’s
crime. As corrected, accused-appellant should be held criminally liable for two counts of
Rape under Article 266-A, Paragraph 1(a) penalized under Article 266-B (1) of the
RPC.”
Citing its 2019 jurisprudence in People v. Tulagan, the Court held: “Indeed, while R.A.
No. 7610 is a special law…We hold that it is contrary to the legislative intent of the
same law if the lesser penalty (reclusion temporal medium to reclusion perpetua) under
Section 5(b) thereof would be imposed against the perpetrator of sexual intercourse
with a child 12 years of age or below 18.”
Further citing Tulagan, the Court emphasized that “Article 266-A, paragraph 1(a) in
relation to Article 266-B of the RPC, amended by R.A. No. 8353, is not only the more
recent law, but also deals more particularly with all rape cases, hence, its short title ‘The
Anti-Rape Law of 1997.’”
The Court explained that the crime of Qualified Rape under paragraph 1, Article 266-A
of the RPC is penalized under Article 266-B
(1) provides that the death penalty shall be imposed if the victim is below
18 and the offender, among others, is the ascendant or a relative by consanguinity or
affinity within the third civil degree. Applying RA 9346 or An Act Prohibiting the
Imposition of the Death Penalty, the CA correctly imposed the penalty of reclusion
perpetua and without eligibility for parole. When circumstances warranting the
imposition of the death penalty but the death penalty could not be imposed because of
RA 9346, the qualification ‘without eligibility for parole’ shall be used to qualify reclusion
perpetua in order to emphasize that the accused should have been sentenced to death
had it not been for RA No. 9346.
(G.R. No. 232329, People v. ZZZ, April 28, 2021)
READ FULL TEXT: https://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/21338/