January 1, 1932

TITLE ELEVEN
Crimes Against Chastity
CHAPTER TWO
Rape and Acts of Lasciviousness
ARTICLE 335. When and How Rape is Committed. — Rape is committed by having carnal
knowledge of a woman under any of the following circumstances:
1. By using force or intimidation;
2. When the woman is deprived of reason or otherwise unconscious; and
3. When the woman is under twelve years of age, even though neither of the
circumstances mentioned in the two next preceding paragraphs shall be
present.
The crime of rape shall be punished by reclusión temporal.
ARTICLE 336. Acts of Lasciviousness. — Any person who shall commit any act of lasciviousness
upon other persons of either sex, under any of the circumstances mentioned in the preceding article,
shall be punished by prisión correccional.

Republic Act No. 8353 September 30, 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

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the Philippines in Congress assembled::

Section 1. Short Title. - This Act shall be known as "The Anti-Rape Law of 1997."

Section 2. Rape as a Crime Against Persons. - The crime of rape shall hereafter be classified as a Crime
Against Persons under Title Eight of Act No. 3815, as amended, otherwise known as the Revised Penal
Code. Accordingly, there shall be incorporated into Title Eight of the same Code a new chapter to be
known as Chapter Three on Rape, to read as follows:

"Chapter Three
"Rape

"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.

"Article 266-B. Penalty. - Rape under paragraph 1 of the next preceding article shall be punished
by reclusion perpetua.

"Whenever the rape is committed with the use of a deadly weapon or by two or more persons,
the penalty shall be reclusion perpetua to death.

"When by reason or on the occasion of the rape, the victim has become insane, the penalty shall
become reclusion perpetua to death.

"When the rape is attempted and a homicide is committed by reason or on the occasion thereof,
the penalty shall be reclusion perpetua to death.

"When by reason or on the occasion ofthe rape, homicide is committed, the penalty shall be
death.

"The death penalty shall also be imposed if the crime of rape is committed with any of the
following aggravating/qualifying circumstances:

"l) When the victim is under eighteen (18) years of age and the offender is a parent, ascendant,
step-parent, guardian, relative by consanguinity or affinity within the third civil degree, or the
common-law spouse of the parent of the victim;

"2) When the victim is under the custody of the police or military authorities or any law
enforcement or penal institution;

"3) When the rape is committed in full view of the spouse, parent, any of the children or other
relatives within the third civil degree of consanguinity;

"4) When the victim is a religious engaged in legitimate religious vocation or calling and is
personally known to be such by the offender before or at the time of the commission of the
crime;

"5) When the victim is a child below seven (7) years old;
"6) When the offender knows that he is afflicted with the Human Immuno-Deficiency Virus
(HIV)/Acquired Immune Deficiency Syndrome (AIDS) or any other sexually transmissible disease
and the virus or disease is transmitted to the victim;

"7) When committed by any member of the Armed Forces of the Philippines or para-military units
thereof or the Philippine National Police or any law enforcement agency or penal institution,
when the offender took advantage of his position to facilitate the commission of the crime;

"8) When by reason or on the occasion of the rape, the victim has suffered permanent physical
mutilation or disability;

"9) When the offender knew of the pregnancy of the offended party at the time of the
commission of the crime; and

"10) When the offender knew of the mental disability, emotional disorder and/or physical
handicap of the offended party at the time of the commission of the crime.

"Rape under paragraph 2 of the next preceding article shall be punished by prision mayor.

"Whenever the rape is committed with the use of a deadly weapon or by two or more persons,
the penalty shall be prision mayor to reclusion temporal.

"When by reason or on the occasion of the rape, the victim has become insane, the penalty shall
be reclusion temporal.

"When the rape is attempted and a homicide is committed by reason or on the occasion thereof,
the penalty shall be reclusion temporal to reclusion perpetua.

"When by reason or on the occasion ofthe rape, homicide is committed, the penalty shall be
reclusion perpetua.

"Reclusion temporal shall be imposed if the rape is committed with any of the ten aggravating/
qualifying circumstances mentioned in this article.

"Article 266-C. Effect of Pardon. - The subsequent valid marriage between the offended party
shall extinguish the criminal action or the penalty imposed.

"In case it is the legal husband who is the offender, the subsequent forgiveness by the wife as the
offended party shall extinguish the criminal action or the penalty: Provided, That the crime shall
not be extinguished or the penalty shall not be abated if the marriage is void ab initio.

"Article 266-D. Presumptions. - Any physical overt act manifesting resistance against the act of
rape in any degree from the offended party, or where the offended party is so situated as to
render her/him incapable of giving valid consent, may be accepted as evidence in the prosecution
of the acts punished under Article 266-A."
Section 3. Separability Clause. - If any part, Sec., or provision of this Act is declared invalid or
unconstitutional, the other parts thereof not affected thereby shall remain valid.

Section 4. Repealing Clause. - Article 336 of Act No. 3815, as amended, and all laws, acts, presidential
decrees, executive orders, administrative orders, rules and regulations inconsistent with or contrary to
the provisions of this Act are deemed amended, modified or repealed accordingly.

Section 5. Effectivity. - This Act shall take effect fifteen (15) days after completion of its publication in two
(2) newspapers of general circulation.

Approved: September 30, 1997.

THE ANTI-RAPE LAW OF 1997

The Subic Rape Case again puts the spotlight on the crime of rape. As comments on the merits of the case
are not allowed, let’s just discuss the crime of rape.

Rape is governed by Article 335 of the Revised Penal Code (RPC), which was amended on 22 October 1997
by Republic Act No. 8353, also known as the “Anti-Rape Law of 1997”. Among the innovations under R.A.
8353 are the following:

1. Marital rape is impliedly recognized. Rape committed against the wife, also known as “marital
rape―, is impliedly acknowledged under the new law, which provides that the subsequent forgiveness by
the wife as the offended party, in case it’s the husband who is the offender, shall extinguish the criminal
action or the penalty. (Article 266-C)

2. Reclassification of rape as a crime against persons. – The new law reclassified rape from crime against
chastity to a crime against persons, which means that prosecution is commenced in court by the filing of
an information by the public prosecutor, and no longer by a mere complaint filed by the offended party,
parents, godparents or guardian.

3. Fourth mode of committing rape. – Prior to 1997, rape is considered committed by having carnal
knowledge of a woman: (1) by using force or intimidation; (2) when the woman is deprived of reason or
otherwise unconscious; or (3) when the woman is under twelve years of age or is demented. The new law
added a fourth mode of committing rape on a woman – by fraudulent machination or grave abuse of
authority.

4. Rape may now be committed against men, not only against women. Rape is committed by “any person
who xxx 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.―

5. Rape now includes acts other than penile penetration of the vaginal orifice. The provision quoted above
means that, among other things, a woman may now be charged of raping another woman.
6. On statutory rape. – The new law provides that statutory rape may be committed even though none of
the three other modes are present. RA 8353 provides that rape is committed 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.―

7. Kind of resistance and proof. Any physical overt act manifesting resistance against the rape in any degree
from the victim is admissible as evidence of lack of consent. Tenacious resistance, however, is not required.
Neither is a determined and persistent physical struggle on the part of the victim necessary. In drafting the
new law, the legislators agreed that Article 266-D is intended to “soften the jurisprudence of the
1970’s― when resistance to rape was required to be tenacious. The lawmakers took note of the fact
that rape victims cannot mount a physical struggle in cases where they were gripped by overpowering fear
or subjugated by moral authority. Article 266-D tempered the case law requirement of physical struggle by
the victim with the victim’s fear of the rapist or incapacity to give valid consent. Thus, the law now
provides that resistance may be proved by any physical overt act in any degree from the offended party
(People vs. Dulay).

8. Marriage extinguishes criminal liability. The new law also expressly provides (Article 266-C) that the
subsequent valid marriage between the offender and the offended party shall extinguish the criminal action
or the penalty imposed. However, this does not apply if the marriage is void ab initio or from the beginning.

Incidentally, the Anti-Rape Law of 1997 should be considered with R.A. 8505 (the “Rape Victim
Assistance and Protection Act of 1998―), which provides for a “rape shield―. It simply means that
in rape, evidence of complainant’s past sexual conduct, opinion thereof or of his/her reputation shall
not be admitted unless, and only to the extent that the court finds, that such evidence is material and
relevant to the case. (Sec. 6)

https://jlp-law.com/blog/anti-rape-law-1997-republic-act-8353/
G.R. No. 93143 August 4, 1992

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, vs. MAXIMO R. RACE, JR.

DAVIDE, JR., J.:

22 September 1988, Corazon E. Collantes, mother of the offended party, Maria Pura, a woman of mute,
deep and retarded, filed with Masbate MTC an information for the crime of rape against Maximo Race.

Judge of the MTC issued an order for the arrest of the accused. MTC issued an order declaring that the
accused had waived his right to a preliminary investigation. Case was forwarded to the Office of the
Provincial Fiscal. Having found probable cause to hold the accused for trial, Assistant Provincial
Prosecutor filed with the RTC of Masbate the Information for rape against accused.

Accused entered a plea of not guilty upon arraignment and trial proceeded thereafter.

On 15 December 1989, the trial court convicted the accused of the crime of rape. According to the court,
rape was committed because Maria Pura, being deaf-mute and mentally retarded, cannot give consent; it
was determined that moral compulsion, amounting to intimidation, was employed by the accused.

The Court could not even say as testified that force was employed upon the victim but the appearance of
the woman alone and her physical condition could not stop any physical force. However, for the reason
that the accused has been known to the woman who (sic) even slept, though outside of their house in an
attachment, moral compulsion which is tantamount to intimidation was employed by the accused when
the sexual intercourse happened. It is a sorry state that the victim could not testify. The Court however, is
convinced that rape was committed.

The accused when confronted by the family of the victim denied having sexual intercourse with Maria
Pura. However, Maria Pura, although a deaf-mute when asked by Collantes and by Noel Abela, and by the
sister Elena Alim pointed to the accused to have committed, (sic) such a dastardly act. She pointed to the
accused when asked as to what happened.

From the said decision, accused filed a notice of appeal.

In support of the alleged error, he contends that reasonable doubt exists in this case because: (a) the
scene of the crime is well populated and inhabited; since it was daytime and there were many people
outside the house when the incident occurred, it is possible that another man or a neighbor of the Puras,
and not the accused, assaulted Maria Pura; (b) he is on parole and knew that if he violated the terms and
conditions thereof, he would be rearrested to serve the unexpired portion of his sentence; it was,
therefore, unlikely that he would commit another crime; (c) there is no reliable eyewitness to the crime;
and (d) he manifested his honesty by not denying that he slapped Noel Abela after the latter made fun of
him (the accused) when he came out of the toilet.
In the morning of September 14, 1988, Elvira Collantes, left her forty-year old sister Maria Pura in their
house to go to the market. Maria was cross-eyed, mute, retarded, and a polio victim, standing less than
four feet who could only nod her head and make signs to be able to communicate. She can crawl but
cannot stand unsupported.

Maria was left alone in the house with Maximo Race, Jr. also known as Jun, who during that time had
asked Elvira for permission to use the toilet built outside the house. Since Race had been using the toilet
in the past with their permission, she agreed.

At around 10 a. m. of the same day, Noel Abila, son of Elena Alim both of whom lived in the Pura
residence together with Maria, had just come home from school when he heard a voice. He immediately
ran to the kitchen where the voice came from and saw Race putting his pants on .

Noel afterwards informed his uncle Glen Collantes, husband of Elvira Collantes of the incident. Glen
brought Race to Maria Pura, who pointed at Race. When Glen asked Maria what Race did to her she again
made the push-pull movement. Maria was laughing.

After the complaint was filed, Maria was examined by Dr. Artemio Capellan, the Municipal health officer,
in their house, the following day.

The results of the examination were stated Maria had sexual contact because the speculum can be
inserted into her without difficulty. She had an old healed hymeneal laceration caused a day before.
Some of the sperm found in her vagina were living at the time they were examined.

On the other hand, the accused denies the commission of the crime.

There can be no doubt that if the carnal knowledge was accomplished under any of the circumstances
enumerated in Article 335 of the Revised Penal Code, the foregoing circumstantial evidence would have
been sufficient to support a conviction for such a crime pursuant to Section 4, Rule 133 of the Rules of
Court which provides:

Sec. 4. Circumstantial evidence, when sufficient. — Circumstantial evidence if sufficient for conviction if:

(a) There is more than one circumstance;

(b) The facts from which the inferences are derived are proven; and

(c) The combination of all the circumstances is such as to produce a conviction beyond reasonable
doubt.

The foregoing disquisitions render utterly ineffectual and reduce to naught accused's assigned error and
the arguments in support thereof. But did the act of the appellant constitute the crime of rape as defined
under Article 335 of the Revised Penal Code? To arrive at the answer, the following crucial issues must be
resolved:
1) whether the information properly charges the accused with the commission of rape; and

2) assuming that it does, whether the evidence for the prosecution established the guilt of the
appellant beyond reasonable doubt.

Article 335 of the Revised Penal Code pertinently provides:

Art. 335. When and how rape is committed. — Rape is committed by having carnal knowledge of a
woman under any of the following circumstances:

1. By using force or intimidation;

2. When the woman is deprived of reason or otherwise unconscious; and

3. When the woman is under twelve years of age, even though neither of the circumstances
mentioned in the two next preceding paragraphs shall be present.

This crime of rape shall be punished by reclusion perpetua.

xxx xxx xxx

The proper complaint and information for rape must clearly describe the specific circumstances which
would make the carnal knowledge of a woman qualify as such under Article 335. Otherwise stated, the
same must concretely describe the crime of rape in any of the specified forms to duly inform the accused
of the nature of the accusation; 15 the right to be informed of such accusation is one of his constitutional
rights. 16

ISSUE:
W/N Maria Pura, before, during and even after the sexual intercourse suffers from mental retardation or,
imbecility which deprived her of reason at the time the appellant had carnal knowledge of her.

RULING:
Yes. Maria Pura was then incapable of giving rational consent to the sexual act. In effect, she is deprived
of reason. In People vs. Manlapaz, which involves a 13-year old girl with the mentality of a 5-year old
child, this Court held:

Sexual intercourse with a woman who is deprived of reason or with a girl who is below twelve years of
age is rape because she is incapable of giving rational consent to the carnal intercourse.

The same rule prevails in American jurisprudence. "There can be no question but that a copulation with a
woman known to be mentally incapable of giving even an imperfect consent is rape" (State vs. Jewett,
192 At. 7).
An accused is guilty of the crime of rape when it is established that he had sexual intercourse with a
female who was mentally incapable of validly consenting to or opposing the carnal act.

In this species of rape neither force upon the part of the man nor resistance upon the part of the woman
forms an element of the crime. If, by reason of any mental weakness, she is incapable of legally
consenting, resistance is not expected any more than it is in the case of one who has been drugged to
unconsciousness, or robbed of judgment by intoxicants. Nor will an apparent consent in such a case avail
any more than in the case of a child who may actually consent, but who by law is conclusively held
incapable of legal consent. Whether the woman possessed mental capacity sufficient to give legal
consent must, saving in exceptional cases, remain a question of fact . . . It need but be said that legal
consent presupposes an intelligence capable of understanding the act, its nature, and possible
consequences. This degree of intelligence may exist with an impaired and weakened intellect, or it may
not.

Pursuant to People vs. Arenas, which involves the rape of a mentally retarded woman, the indemnity to
be paid should be increased to P40,000.00. The four-fifths (4/5) credit, on the other hand, is improper.
Accused is entitled to be credited with the full time of his preventive imprisonment under the first
paragraph of Article 29 of the Revised Penal Code and not under paragraph two, which prescribes the
four-fifths (4/5) credit, since there is no evidence that he did not agree to abide by the same disciplinary
rules imposed upon convicted prisoners.

That penalty is not equal or greater — but is definitely lower — than that provided for the crime of
ordinary rape which is reclusion perpetua.