REPUBLIC ACT NO.

8353
ANTI-RAPE LAW OF 1997
AN ACT EXPANDING THE DEFINITION OF
THE CRIME OF RAPE, RECLASSIFYING
THE SAME AS A CRIME AGAINST
PERSONS, AMENDING FOR THE
PURPOSE ACT NO. 3815, AS AMENDED,
OTHERWISE KNOWN AS THE REVISED
PENAL CODE, AND FOR OTHER
PURPOSES.
From CNN Philippines, March 8, 2017
 RAPE MYTHS
Rape myths are beliefs about sexual assault
that wrought with problems.
Some myths are just completely and blatantly
untrue. What often happens is that beliefs
surrounding circumstances, situations, and
characteristics of individuals connected to
rape are applied to all cases and situations
uncritically.
Myths exist for many historic reasons which
include inherited structural conditions, gender
role expectations, and the fundamental
exercise of power in a patriarchal society.
 ANTI-RAPE LAW OF 1997
Approved September 30, 1997
Enacted to expand the definition
of the crime of rape as a crime
against persons
Amended RA 3815, as amended,
otherwise known as the Revised
Penal Code
WHO CAN COMMIT RAPE?
Under R.A. 8353:
can now be committed by a
male or female
 HOW COMMITTED?
RAPE BY SEXUAL INTERCOURSE

ARTICLE 266-A.
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; or
d) When the offended party is under twelve
(12) years of age or is demented.
There must be sexual intercourse.
Penetration even partial is necessary.
Slightest penetration is enough. Proof of
emission is not necessary. (Miller, Criminal Law,
299; People v. Selfaison, et. al., G.R. No. L-14732, January 28,
1961.)

The absence of spermatozoa in the

vagina does not negate rape. (People v.
Nula, CA-G.R No. 19896-R, May 7, 1958; People v. Canastre, 82
Phil. 480.)
Jurisprudence dictates that the labia majora must
be entered for rape to be consummated, and not
merely for the penis to stroke the surface of the
female organ. Thus, a grazing of the surface of the
female organ or touching the mons pubis of the
pudendum is not sufficient to constitute
consummated rape. Absent any showing of the
slightest penetration of the female organ, i.e.,
touchng of either labia of the pudendum by the
penis there can be no consummated rape; at
most, it can only be attempted rape, if not acts of
lasciviousness. (People v. Campuhan, G.R. No. 129433, March 30,
2000.)
PARTS
A BROKEN HYMEN IS NOT AN ESSENTIAL
ELEMENT OF RAPE.

Even the fact that the hymen of the victim was still intact
does not rule out the possibility of rape. Research in
medicine even points out the negative findings are of no
significance, since the hymen may not be torn despite
repeated coitus. In any cases, for rape to be
consummated, full penetration is not necessary. Penile
invasion necessarily entails contact with the labia. It
suffices that there is proof of the entrance of the male
organ into the labia of the pudendum of the female
organ. Penetration of the penis by entry into the lips of
the vagina, even without rupture or laceration of the
hymen, is enough to justify of conviction of rape. (People
v. Ortoa, G.R. No. 174484 February 23, 2009.)
 HOW COMMITTED?
RAPE BY SEXUAL ASSAULT

ARTICLE 266-A.
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.
BY USING FORCE AND INTIMIDATION
FORCE EMPLOYED AGAINST THE VICTIM OF
RAPE NEED NOT BE OF SUCH CHARACTER AS
COULD BE RESISTED.

It is enough that the force used is sufficient

to consummate the culprits purpose of
copulating with the offended woman.
The force or violence necessary in rape is
naturally a relative term, depenind on the
age size and strength of the parties and their
relation to each other. (People v. Savellano,
57 SCRA 320)
RESISTANCE WHEN FUTILE, DOES NOT
AMOUNT TO CONSENT
The test whether the threat or intimidation
produces reasonable fear in the mind of the
victim that if she resists or does not yield to
the desires of the accused, the threat would
be carried out.
It is not necessary that the victim should
have resisted unto death or sustained
physical injuries in the hands of the rapist.
It is enough if the intercourse takes place
against her will of if she yields because of
genuine apprehension of harm to her if she
did not do so. Indeed, the law does not
impose upon the victim the burden of
proving resistance. (People v. Sending, G.R. No. 141773-76, January
20, 2003.)
 INTIMIDATION
Intimidation must be viewed in the light
of the victims perception and judgment
at the time of rape and not by any hard
and fast rule.
It is enough that it produces fear fear
that if the victim does not yield to the
bestial demands of the accused,
something would happen to her at the
moment or thereafter, as when she is
threatened with death if she reports the
incident. (People v. Tabugoca, 285 SCRA 312, 332
(1998); People v. Metin, G.R. No. 140781, May 8, 2003.)
MORAL ASCENDANCY OR INFLUENCE, HELD TO
SUBSTITUTE FOR THE ELEMENT OF PHYSICAL
FORCE OR INTIMIDATION

The Court has applied this rule to rape

committed by:
1. Fathers against their daughters
2. Stepfathers against their
stepdaughters
3. A godfather against his goddaughter
4. Uncles against their nieces
5. The first cousin of the victim's mother
In Rape where offender has an ascendancy
or influence: It is not necessary to put up a
determined resistance.
When the offender is the father of the
girl who was yet of tender age, it is not
necessary that there be signs that she
put up determined resistance.
A sexual act between father and
daughter is so revolting that it would
be hard to believe that the
complainant would have submitted
thereto if her will to resist had not
been empowered. (People v. Alinea, C.A., 45 O.G.,
Supp. 5, 1940.)
OFFENDED PARTY DEPRIVED OF
REASON
In this case, the victim has no will.
Cohabitation with a feebleminded, idiotic
woman is rape. The deprivation of reason
contemplated by law does not need to be
complete. Mental abnormality or deficiency
is sufficient. (People v. Daing, C.A., 49 O.G. 2331.)
Intercourse with a deaf-mute woman is not
rape, in the absence of proof that she is
imbecile. (People v. Nava, C.A. 40 O.G. 4237)
RAPE WHEN WOMAN IS UNCONSCIOUS

In the following cases, there is rape because woman is

unconscious:
1. Carnal act while the offended party was asleep (People v.
Caballero, 61 Phil. 900)
2. When the woman is in a lethargy produced by sickness
3. After the woman was knocked unconscious (People v.
Sanico, C.A. 46 O.G. 98)
4. When narcotic was administered to the woman
5. When a potion is given to the woman
STATUTORY RAPE: when the girl is
under 12 years of age
ELEMENTS:
1. Where the offended party is less than 12
years f age, rape is committed although
she consented to the sexual act. (People v.
Villamor, C.A., 31 O.G. 947)
2. Sexual intercourse with a 9 year old girl is
rape. (People v. Piedo, 44 O.G. 2764)
3. Rape is committed even if the girl under 12
years is a prostitute. (People v. Perez, C.A. 37 O.G.
1762)
Character of an offended woman is
immaterial in rape.
The fact that the offended party
may have been of an unchaste
character constitute no defense
in a charge of rape, provided
that the illicit relations were
committed with force and
violence, etc. (People v. Blanco, 46 Phil. 113.)
PENALTIES FOR RAPE UNDER PARAGRAPH 1
AND RAPE UNDER PARAGRAPH 2 COMPARED
1. Rape committed under any law of the 4
circumstances
Par.1 reclusion perpetua
Par. 2 prison mayor

2. Rape committed with the use of deadly

weapon or by two or more persons.
Par.1 reclusion perpetua to death
Par. 2- prison mayor to reclusion temporal
 PENALTIES FOR RAPE UNDER PARAGRAPH 1 AND
RAPE UNDER PARAGRAPH 2 COMPARED

3. rape where victim becomes insane

Par. 1 reclusion perpetua to death
Par.2 reclusion temporal

4. attempted rape and homicide is

committed
Par.1 reclusion perpetua to death
Par.2 reclusion temporal to
reclusion perpetua
 PENALTIES FOR RAPE UNDER PARAGRAPH 1 AND
RAPE UNDER PARAGRAPH 2 COMPARED

5. rape with homicide

Par.1 death
Par. 2 reclusion perpetua
6. rape with aggravating/qualifying
circumstances
Par. 1 death
Par. 2 reclusion perpetua
 ARTICLE 266-C. PARDON
1. Subsequent valid marriage EFFECT
between the offended party
and the offender
2. Subsequent forgiveness by extinguish the
the wife as the offended
party in case it is the legal criminal action
husband who is the or the penalty
offender

HOWEVER, the crime shall not

be extinguished or the penalty
shall not be abated if the
marriage is void ab initio.
This principle does not apply where
multiple rape is committed because
while marriage with one defendant
extinguishes the criminal liability, its
benefits cannot be extended to the acts
committed by the others of which he is a
co-principal. (People v. Bernardo, et. al., C.A. 38,
O.G. 3479)
 JURISPRUDENCE
A violation of the body orifices the fingers is
within the expended definition of rape under
Republic act No. 8353

It was ruled that the appellant is guilty of rape through

sexual assault when he inserted his finger into the vagina
of his victim. This is one of the significant amendments
introduced by the new law, thus making the insertion of any
instrument, object, or any part human body other than
sexual organ into the genital or anus of another person as
rape and not merely acts of lasciviousness. (People v.
Campuhan)
 PEOPLE vs. EDGAR JUMAWAN
G.R. No. 187495, April 21, 2014
Marital Rape
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.
This is the clear State policy expressly
legislated in Section 266A of the Revised
Penal Code (RPC), as amended by Republic
Act (R.A.) No. 8353 or the AntiRape Law of
1997.
People vs. Dadula (519 SCRA 48)
Sweetheart Defense
Sweetheart defense is effectively an admission of
carnal knowledge of the victim and consequently
places on the accused the burden of proving the
alleged relationship by substantial evidence. Proof
Required: For the said theory to prosper, the
existence of the supposed relationship must be
proven by convincing substantial evidence. Failure to
adduce such evidence renders his claim to be self-
serving and of no probative value. For the satisfaction
of the Court, there should be a corroboration by their
common friends or, if none, a substantiation by tokens
of such a relationship such as love letters, gifts,
pictures and the like. (People v. Madsali, G.R. No. 179570, February 4,
2010)
 People vs. Ogarte
G.R. No. 182690, May 20,2011
Victims delay in reporting the incident to the proper
authorities is insignificant and does not negate the
veracity of charges of rape against the accused. SC
reiterates: The failure of complainant to disclose her
defilement without loss of time to persons close to her or
to report the matter to the authorities does not perforce
warrant the conclusion that she was not sexually molested
and that her charges against the accused are all baseless,
untrue and fabricated. Delay in prosecuting the offense is
not an indication of a fabricated charge. Many victims of
rape never complain or file criminal charges against the
rapists. They prefer to bear the ignominy and pain, rather
than reveal their shame to the world or risk the offenders
making good their threats to kill or hurt their victims.
(People v. Gecomo, 324 Phil. 297, 314-315 (1996).
 People vs. Dahilig
G.R. No. 187083, June 13, 2011

Conviction of either Rape or Child Abuse

RTC: GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt for the crime

of Rape (Violation of Article 266-A par. 1 in rel. to
Article 266-B, 1st par. of the Revised Penal Code, as
amended by RA 8353 and in further relation to
Section 5(a) of R.A. No. 8369) and the accused is
hereby sentenced to suffer imprisonment of reclusion
perpetua. FIFTY THOUSAND PESOS (P50,000.00),
as moral damages and FIFTY THOUSAND PESOS
(P50,000.00), as civil indemnity.
CA: Guilty of child abuse as defined and
penalized by Sec. 5, (b), Republic Act No.
7610, and, accordingly, sentencing him to
suffer the indeterminate penalty of 11 years of
prision mayor, as minimum, to 17 years, 4
months and 1 day of reclusion temporal, as
maximum; and to pay to AAA P50,000.00 as
moral damages and P50,000.00 as civil
indemnity.
SC: Under Section 5(b), Article III of RA 7610 in relation to
RA 8353, if the victim of sexual abuse is below 12 years of
age, the offender should not be prosecuted for sexual
abuse but for statutory rape under Article 266-A(1)(d) of
the Revised Penal Code and penalized with reclusion
perpetua. On the other hand, if the victim is 12 years or
older, the offender should be charged with either sexual
abuse under Section 5(b) of RA 7610 or rape under Article
266-A (except paragraph 1[d]) of the Revised Penal Code.
However, the offender cannot be accused of both crimes
for the same act because his right against double jeopardy
will be prejudiced. A person cannot be subjected twice to
criminal liability for a single criminal act. Likewise, rape
cannot be complexed with a violation of Section 5(b) of RA
7610. Under Section 48 of the Revised Penal Code (on
complex crimes), a felony under the Revised Penal Code
(such as rape) cannot be complexed with an offense
penalized by a special law.
The accused can be charged with either Rape
or Child Abuse and be convicted therefor.
Since the information correctly charged the
accused with rape in violation of Article 266-A
par. 1 in relation to Article 266-B, 1st par. of
the Revised Penal Code, as amended by R.A.
No. 8353, and that he was convicted therefor,
the CA should have merely affirmed the
conviction.
THANK YOU!!