Title
People vs. Jumawan
Case
G.R. No. 187495
Decision Date
Apr 21, 2014
A husband convicted of marital rape for forcing intercourse on his wife in 1998; courts upheld marital rape as a crime under Philippine law, affirming reclusion perpetua and damages.

Case Summary (G.R. No. 187495)

Parties

Petitioner: People of the Philippines
Respondent: Edgar Jumawan

Key Dates and Procedural History

• Marriage of Jumawan and KKK: October 18, 1975
• Alleged rapes: Nights of October 16 and 17, 1998
• Complaint-affidavit filed by KKK: February 19, 1999
• Joint resolution of prosecution: June 11, 1999
• Informations for rape filed: July 16, 1999
• RTC judgment convicting respondent: April 1, 2002
• CA decision affirming RTC: July 9, 2008
• SC decision affirming with modifications: April 21, 2014

Applicable Law

• 1987 Philippine Constitution (equality under Article III, Sec. 1; gender equality under Article II, Sec. 14)
• Revised Penal Code, Articles 266-A and 266-C as amended by Republic Act No. 8353 (Anti-Rape Law of 1997)
• Republic Act No. 9262 (Anti-Violence Against Women and Their Children Act of 2004)
• United Nations Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women (CEDAW)
• UN Declaration on the Elimination of Violence Against Women

Factual Background

Jumawan and KKK co-managed family businesses and maintained separate residences at times between Gusa, Cagayan de Oro City, and Dangcagan, Bukidnon. Beginning in 1997, marital discord arose over KKK’s alleged focus on business and her daughters. On October 16, 1998, KKK was resting on a cot when Jumawan ordered her into their conjugal bedroom, violently removed her cot, and forcibly undressed and penetrated her despite her audible protests and physical resistance. On October 17, he repeated the assault in the children’s bedroom after angrily demanding she sleep with him.

Prosecution’s Evidence

• KKK’s consistent, spontaneous testimony in direct, cross-, re-direct and re-cross examination, describing force (pulling her underwear, flexing her legs, holding her hands) and intimidation (anger, blocking exit).
• MMM and OOO’s corroboration of KKK’s cries for help, discovery of torn underwear, and KKK’s statements identifying her husband as an “animal” and “beast.”
• Physical evidence: torn panties and short pants.

Defense’s Evidence

• Jumawan’s alibi: presence in Dangcagan, Bukidnon on October 16–17, 1998, corroborated by driver Ryle Equia, citing truck accident recovery and fiesta attendance.
• Allegations of KKK’s ill motive: mismanagement of business proceeds (claimed unexplained disappearance of about ₱3 million) and fabricated charges to cover alleged extra-marital affairs.
• Claim that KKK delayed reporting due to unfamiliarity with the concept of marital rape.

RTC Decision

The Regional Trial Court found the testimonies of KKK and her daughters credible, rejected the alibi and infidelity claims as inconsistent and unsubstantiated, and convicted Jumawan of two counts of rape, sentencing him to reclusion perpetua per count and awarding moral, exemplary, and indemnity damages.

CA Decision

The Court of Appeals affirmed the RTC, holding that amendment of the Informations was proper, that spousal rape is punishable under RA 8353, and that absence of medical or blood evidence does not negate force or intimidation. The CA also ruled that no wife would falsely accuse her husband of rape, and Jumawan’s alibi failed to show physical impossibility of his presence in Cagayan de Oro.

Issue on Marital Rape Exemption

Jumawan argued that, as husband and wife, KKK’s consent was presumed and that the standard of proof should differ in marital rape.

International and Constitutional Principles

By ratifying CEDAW and adopting UN declarations, the Philippines pledged to eliminate gender-based violence, recognize women’s equality, and criminalize all forms of discrimination, including marital rape. The 1987 Constitution guarantees human dignity, full respect for human rights, and fundamental equality before the law of women and men.

Legislative History of Anti-Rape Law

RA 8353 (1997) reclassified rape as a crime against person, removed it from crimes against chastity, and expressly penalized “a man who shall have carnal knowledge of a woman under any of the following circumstances,” without exception for legal husband. The second paragraph of Art. 266-C recognizes that forgiveness by a wife can extinguish criminal action only where marriage exists, implying spousal liability. Congressional debates clarified that marital rape was never excluded but needed explicit affirmation to prevent any doubt.

Analysis of Marital Rape under RA 8353 and RA 9262

RA 8353’s unqualified definition of rape applies equally to spouses. RA 9262 categorizes marital rape as sexual violence within the family. No provision distinguishes the elements or evidentiary requirements of marital from non-marital rape; hence, courts must apply uniform standards.

Equal Protection and Consent

Under the equal protection clause, rape victims—married or unmarried—must not be treated differently. Consent may be given or withheld by a spouse as freely as by any other individual. The obsolete “irrevocable implied consent” theory, rooted in property-based conceptions of women, is unconstitutional, lacks rational basis, and was rejected in People v. Liberta (New York, 1983).

Credibility and Corroboration of Witnesses

The testimony of a rape complainant, if credible, may suffice for conviction. The trial court’s opportunity to observe demeanor commands respect. KKK’s unwavering, detailed recounting of both incidents, reinforced by MMM and OOO’s corroborative observations and KKK’s torn garments, established beyond reasonable doubt the use of force and intimidation and absence of consent.

Rejection of Defense Arguments

• Physical or medical evidence: absence of blood or a medical certificate is immaterial where force and int





...continue reading

Analyze Cases Smarter, Faster
Jur helps you analyze cases smarter to comprehend faster—building context before diving into full texts.