ART. 247.

 Death or physical injuries inflicted under exceptional
circumstances. — Any legally married person who, having surprised
his spouse in the act of committing sexual intercourse with another
person, shall kill any of them or both of them in the act or
immediately thereafter, or shall inflict upon them any serious
physical injury, shall suffer the penalty of destierro.
If he shall inflict upon them physical injuries of any other kind, he
shall be exempt from punishment.
These rules shall be applicable, under the same circumstances, to
parents with respect to their daughters under eighteen years of age,
and their seducers, while the daughters are living with their parents.
Any person who shall promote or facilitate prostitution of his wife or
daughter, or shall otherwise have consented to the infidelity of the
other spouse shall not be entitled to the benefits of this article.
Art. 247 does not define and penalize a felony.
If the killing of, or the inflicting of the serious physical injuries on, the
spouse and/or the paramour is done under the circumstances
mentioned in this article, the accused shall be sentenced to
destierro, instead of the severe penalty for parricide, homicide, or
serious physical injuries provided for in Arts. 246, 249, or 263.
(People vs. Araquel)
Under Art 13, having acted upon an impulse so powerful as
naturally to have produced passion or obfuscation is a mitigating
circumstance.
 Passion and obfuscation is mitigating: when there are
causes naturally producing in a person powerful excitement,
he loses his reason and self-control. Thereby dismissing the
exercise of his will power. Only when the same arise from
lawful sentiments (not Mitigating Circumstance when done
in the spirit of revenge or lawlessness)
Requisites for Passion & Obfuscation
1. The offender acted on impulse powerful enough to produce
passion or obfuscation
2. That the act was committed not in the spirit of lawlessness or
revenge
3. The act must come from lawful sentiments
4. That there be an act, both unlawful and unjust
5. b. The act be sufficient to produce a condition of mind
6. c. That the act was proximate to the criminal act
7. The victim must be the one who caused the passion or
obfuscation

The requisites of Art. 247 must be established by the evidence of the
defense, bc the prosecution will have to charge the defendant with
parricide and/or homicide, in case death results; or serious physical
injuries in the other case.
In People vs. Gabriel, the accused, peeping through a hole near the
kitchen door, saw his wife and her paramour kissing each other; that
after a few moments, he saw the paramour trying to lift the skirt of
his wife; that she at first objected but later consented and herself
lowered her drawers; that the paramour unbuttoned his drawers; and
that they commenced the act of sexual intercourse. It was only then
when he attacked them. The accused was not held liable for the
injuries suffered by the paramour.
The killing or inflicting of serious physical injuries must be (1) "in the
act of sexual intercourse," or (2) " immediately thereafter."
When a person surprised his spouse or young daughter while having
sexual intercourse with another person, it is necessary, under Art.
247, that he killed or inflicted serious physical injuries on any or both
of them, either (1) while they were in the act of sexual intercourse or,
if not, because they were able to run away, (2) immediately after
surprising them in the act of sexual intercourse.
Justification for Art. 247. The law, when the circumstances provided
by this article are present, considers the spouse or parent as acting
in a justified burst of passion. (People vs. Gonzales)
Banishment not intended as penalty.
The penalty of destierro is not really intended as a penalty but to
remove the killer spouse from the vicinity and to protect him or her
from acts of reprisal principally by relatives of the deceased spouse.
(People vs. Lauron)
The law encourages commission of crime
Utilitarian Theory or Protective Theory
The primary purpose of the punishment under criminal law is the
protection of society from actual and potential wrongdoers.  1. The law, which applies only to daughters and not sons, blatantly
The courts should direct the punishment to potential or
actual wrongdoers, since criminal law is directed against acts and
omissions which the society does not approve.  given more freedom and importance in the family. The law is clearly
Consistent with this theory, the mala prohibita principle
which punishes an offense regardless of malice or criminal intent,
should not be utilized to apply the full harshness of the special law.  - Women should keep a particular sexual conduct or should maintain
E.g. Juan saw Tomas hitting his (Juan) son. Juan stabbed Tomas.
Juan is entitled to Mitigating Circumstance of P&O as his actuation
arose from a natural instinct that impels a father to rush to the rescue
of his son.
The exercise of a right or a fulfillment of a duty is not the proper
source of P&O. A policeman arrested Juan as he was making a
public disturbance on the streets. Juan’s anger and indignation
resulting from the arrest can’t be considered passionate obfuscation
because the policeman was doing a lawful act.
While indeed, passion and obfuscation can legally be considered as
a mitigating circumstance which could lower the penalty by one
degree under other circumstances, Article 247 unreasonably
provides a different appreciation of passion in the context of family
honor, such that it is given much regard even at the expense of
human lives. This is evidenced by the fact that the convicted person
is given absolution from the crime.
First paragraph of the law applies to both the husband and the wife
as the term used was “any legally married person”. Note, however,
that the said provision seems to have been originally crafted in
contemplation of a situation where a man catches his wife in bed
with another. This is seen from the consistent use of the terms
“he” or “his” when referring to the offender. At any rate, said
provision must not be countenanced (permitted/tolerated) because it
is a clear violation of human rights . A person’s anger or extreme
passion cannot be a license to inflict physical harm or death
upon a spouse, even when caught having sexual intercourse
with another. There is a law which criminalizes the act of sexual
infidelity after all and it is even a ground for legal separation. By
maintaining Article 247 in the RPC, we are effectively giving more
importance to a person’s reputation, image and esteem than to
actual lives of people.
The third paragraph of Article 247 pertains to daughters under
eighteen (18) years of age. This is more problematic than the first
two paragraphs for two reasons:
discriminates against women and reinforces the notion that
female children are treated as inferior to male children who are
based on unfair gender-based assumptions, such as:
certain moral standards;
-  Women are wards or property of the men or the parents; and
-  Women’s deviation from the sexual or “moral” norm (the “good-bad
woman” dichotomy), excuses the parents, particularly the fathers’
killing or injuring them.”
2. By allowing parents to inflict harm or to kill a minor daughter under
the above-stated “exceptional” circumstance, the law contradicts
the well-established principle of promoting the best interest of
children at all times, embodied not only in our domestic laws
but also in international covenants to which we are a signatory.
WHAT ARE THE EXISTING LAWS OR POLICIES RELATED TO
THE ISSUE?
Article II Section 11 of the 1987 Consti provides that “the State
values the dignity of every human person and guarantees full
respect for human rights.”
Article III, Section I provides that, "No person shall be deprived of
life, liberty, or property without due process of law."
Section 12 of Republic Act 9710 or the Magna Carta of Women
(MCW) provides for the amendment or repeal of laws that are
discriminatory to women which, among others, would include Article
247 of the RPC.
With regards to the provision pertaining to daughters, Republic Act
No. 7610 or the Special Protection of Children Against Abuse,
Exploitation and Discrimination Act mandates that, “The best
interests of children shall be the paramount consideration in all
actions concerning them, whether undertaken by public or private
social welfare institutions, courts of law, administrative authorities,
and legislative bodies… Every effort shall be exerted to promote the
welfare of children and enhance their opportunities for a useful and
happy life.”
WHAT ARE THE CONSIDERATIONS IN ADDRESSING THIS
ISSUE IN THE COUNTRY?
Promoting women’s rights and gender equality
Repealing Article 247 of the RPC will help eliminate discrimination
against women, promote women’s rights and enhance the status of
women in the Philippine society. It will also uphold the right to life of
girl children.
Responding to International Commitments
Repealing Article 247 responds to the Philippine Government’s State
Obligation under the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of
Discrimination Against Women (CEDAW), particularly the State
obligation to repeal all discriminatory laws and practices, and
provide effective mechanisms and remedies where women can
seek redress for rights violations of their rights.
It is also in response to the Convention of the Rights of the Child,
particularly the
1. State obligation to put the best interests of the child as a primary
consideration in all actions concerning children, and;
2. to take all appropriate measures to ensure that the child is
protected against all forms of discrimination or punishment on
the basis of the status, activities, expressed opinions, or beliefs
of the child's parents, legal guardians, or family members, and;
3. protect the child from all forms of physical or mental violence,
injury or abuse while in the care of parent(s), legal guardian(s) or
any other person
POLICY RECOMMENDATION
It is recommended that Article 247 of the RPC be repealed,
consistent with the Constitutional provision that “no person shall be
deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process of law.” The
circumstances referred to in Article 247 may be treated as a possible
mitigating circumstance that would allow imposition of lesser penalty,
but definitely not absolute exemption. 
CONCLUSION
The infliction of physical injuries and/or death upon a person due to
mere passion or emotions should not find any place in our laws
today. This is a clear violation of human rights and must therefore
not be tolerated.
Moreover, to essentially allow parents to commit this crime
against their minor daughter is to discriminate against women
who do not conform to society’s conservative expectations of
what her sexual behavior should be.To maintain Article 247 in the
RPC is to blatantly disregard the various other laws and international
commitments that we have which uphold human rights and the rights
of women and children.
Article 332 of the RPC provides:
No criminal liability, but only civil liability shall result from the
commission of the crime of theft, swindling, or malicious
mischief committed or caused mutually by the following persons:
1.Spouses, ascendants and descendants, or relatives by affinity in
the same line;
2.The widowed spouse with respect to the property which
belonged to the deceased spouse before the same shall have
passed into the possession of another; and
3.Brothers and sisters and brothers-in-law and sisters-in-law, if
living together.
The exemption established by this article shall not be applicable
to strangers participating in the commission of the crime.
A family will not be criminally liable for the aforementioned crimes,
but the person will still be subject to civil liability. A complex crime will
also be treated as one and will be subject to a single criminal
prosecution.
The exception only applies to a complex crime and not a crime of
simple estafa. As mentioned under Article 332 the law only applies to
the felonies of theft, malicious mischief and swindling. However, if
the crimes that are included in Article 332 are perpetrated with
another crime such as estafa, extension will not be applied.  A
person still has a criminal liability regardless of his relationship to the
offended party. 
The provision’s coverage is only for estafa, simple theft and
malicious mischief. This means complex crimes are not covered. In
one case involving an accused who did not only commit simple
estafa but estafa through falsification of public document, the
offense’s real nature was identified by the facts presented. As a
result, the accused was not given the ability to avail himself of
the absolutory cause that is only provided under the exempting
law. The law still brings confusion when it comes to exception and if
promoting solidarity and harmony is the only reason to deter the
offended party from pursuing criminal charges, then it is no longer
surprising this law has been considered strange and absurd.
Article II Section 12 of the Consti provides that the State shall
protect and strengthen the family as a basic autonomous
social institution. As a policy of the State, it is the duty of the
State to fortify the union of the family. The fulfilment of this
mandate of the Consti is exemplified in Art 332 of the RPC which
seeks to preserve family harmony and ward off scandal.
No criminal, but only civil liability shall result from the commission of
any said crimes, committed or caused mutually by those persons.
(Par. 1, Art. 332)
Reason for exemption from criminal liability: The law recognizes
the presumed co-ownership of the property between the
offender and the offended party.
Stepfather, adopted father, natural children, concubine, paramour,
included. Stepfather and stepmother are included as ascendants by
affinity. (People vs. Alvarez)
A stepfather, who was angry with his stepson, took the suitcase of
the latter with its contents and burned it in an orchard. As this crime
should be treated as malicious mischief only, the stepfather is not
criminally liable. (People vs. Alvarez)
An adopted or natural child should also be considered as relatives
included in the term "descendants" and a concubine or paramour
within the term "spouses." (Guevara)
Art. 332 applies to common-law spouses. Even our Civil Code
concedes to a man and a woman who live together as husband and
wife without benefit of ceremony, the right of co-ownership to the
"property acquired by either or both of them through their work or
industry or their wages and salaries." (Article 144)
The widowed spouse who commits theft, estafa or malicious
mischief with respect to property of deceased.
To be exempt from criminal liability, it is required that —
(1) the property belongs to the deceased spouse; and
(2) it has not passed into the possession of a third person.
Brothers and sisters and brothers-in-law and sisters-in-law must be
living together at the time of the commission of any of the crimes of
theft, estafa or malicious mischief.
Thus, when the accused, the brother-in-law of the offended party,
was living in the house of the offended party at the time he received
PI,000 from the latter to buy plumbing fixtures for her, and
misappropriated it to her prejudice, there was only civil liability.
(People vs. Navas)
Article 332 provides for an absolutory cause in the crimes of theft,
estafa (or swindling) and malicious mischief. It limits the
responsibility of the offender to civil liability and frees him from
criminal liability by virtue of his relationship to the offended party.
Included in the exemptions are parents-in-law, stepparents and
adopted children. By virtue thereof, no criminal liability is incurred by
the stepfather who commits malicious mischief against his stepson;
by the stepmother who commits theft against her stepson; by the
stepfather who steals something from his stepson; by the grandson
who steals from his grandfather by the accused who swindles his
sister-in-law living with him; and by the son who steals a ring from
his mother. (Intestate Estate of Gonzales vda. de Carungcong vs.
People.)
The relationship by affinity created between the surviving spouse
and the blood relatives of the deceased spouse survives the death of
either party to the marriage which created the affinity. (Intestate
Estate of Gonzales vda. de Carungcong vs. People)
This prohibition against women is, or WAS, contained in Artile 351 of
the RPC (Act No. 3815), which reads:
“Art. 351. Premature marriages. Any widow who shall marry within
three hundred and one days from the date of the death of her
husband, or before having delivered if she shall have been pregnant
at the time of his death, shall be punished by arresto mayor1 and a
fine not exceeding 500 pesos.
The same penalties shall be imposed upon any woman whose
marriage shall have been annulled or dissolved, if she shall marry
before her delivery or before the expiration of the period of three
hundred and one day after the legal separation.”
The death of either spouse dissolves the marital bond (same
effect with annulment or declaration of nullity). This simply means
that, subject to compliance with certain requirements, the husband
or the wife is free to marry again. There is no legal obstacle for
remarriage (and we’ve heard of a plot or two involving a spouse who
wants to kill the other spouse so he/she can marry another person).
Men may remarry right away. Women, on the other
hand, must wait for 301 days or, if pregnant at the time of the
husband’s death, must wait until childbirth, before they can
remarry. The main thrust of ART 351 is the prevention of doubtful
paternity and filiation following the constitutional mandate that the  
“state recognizes the Filipino family as the foundation of the
nation.” Art. 351 has been identified as discriminatory as no similar
provisions of law exist for men.
On 13 March 2015, Pres. Benigno Aquino III signed into
law Republic Act No. 10655, which repealed Article 351 of the
RPC. In other words, the act of “premature marriage” has been
decriminalized. R.A. 10655 reads: “Without prejudice to the
provisions of the Family Code on paternity and filiation, Article 351 of
Act No. 3815, otherwise known as the RPC, punishing the crime of
premature marriage committed by a woman, is hereby repealed.”
(Sec. 1)
The author of RA 10655 explained that the law on premature
marriages under Article 351 of the RPC “is discriminatory for it
curtails the right of a woman to marry under the stated
circumstances when no such penalty is imposed on the man
who does the same. Similarly, the effect of the provision is
an enforced mourning period on the part of the woman although
none is imposed on the man.” 
Many have challenged the antiquated provision by claiming that it
runs contrary to RA 9710 or the Magna Carta of Women which
states that the State “pursues by all appropriate means and
without delay the policy of eliminating discrimination against
women” and the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of
Discrimination Against Women which the country is duty bound to
uphold.
With the repeal of this law, any woman is now free to remarry at any
time she wants, without an enforced “mourning period”
following the death of her husband or her dissolution of
marriage.
The Anti-Rape Law of 1997, specifically the archaic provision
Article 266-C which provides for the pardon of the rapist if he
subsequently marries the victim, or if the rapist-husband is pardoned
by the wife, is in itself problematic, and SHALL BE REPEALED.
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.
In the case of PEOPLE vs. DE GUZMAN in 2010, the Court granted
the motion of the accused for extinguishment of the criminal action
based on his marriage to the private complainant subsequent to the
rape. The accused had been convicted for two counts of rape and
was already sentenced to reclusion perpetua for each count.  The same (clause) only perpetuates gender-based violence under
However, the very same court absolved the accused on account of
said after-the-rape marriage to the private complainant, a marriage
which was celebrated at the Bureau of Corrections in 2009.  As held
by the Court:
“On several occasions, we applied these provisions to marriages
contracted between the offender and the offended party in the crime
of rape, as well as in the crime of abuse of chastity, to totally
extinguish the criminal liability of and the corresponding
penalty that may have been imposed upon those found guilty of
the felony.  Parenthetically, we would like to mention here that prior
to the case at bar, the last case bearing similar circumstances was
decided by this Court in 1974, or around 36 years ago.
Based on the documents, including copies of pictures taken after the
ceremony and attached to the motion, we find the marriage
between appellant and private complainant to have been
contracted validly, legally, and in good faith, as an expression
of their mutual love for each other and their desire to establish
a family of their own.  Given public policy considerations of respect
for the sanctity of marriage and the highest regard for the solidarity
of the family, we must accord appellant the full benefits of Article 89,
in relation to Article 344 and Article 266-C of the RPC.”
The benefit of such a marriage can even extend to co-principals,
accomplices and accessories provided there is only one single crime
of rape. It does not apply to two or more crimes of rape which are
treated independently.
It is rather difficult to see how a marital union can even be created
from such a crime of violence.  Even if the law provides for such a
situation, possibly with a view that this can serve to restore the
victim’s reputation or even from belief that love can indeed triumph
over all, it is undeniable that the same provisions are inconsistent
with the laws protecting women and their children. 
The woman, may, in place of the man serving the sentence, be the
one sentenced to endure the presence of such rapist.
When this happens, who really then serves the sentence, the man
who uses marriage as a way out or the woman who must endure his
presence? We can only hope that neither has to as only a marriage
contracted in good faith qualifies to extinguish criminal liability.
RA 9262 or an Act Defining Violence Against Women and Their
Children provides that The State recognizes the need to protect the
family and its members particularly women and children, from
violence and threats to their personal safety and security.
This Act shall be liberally construed to promote the protection and
safety of victims of violence against women and their children.
PWC:
On the Forgiveness Clause
The current Anti-Rape Law contains a forgiveness clause that easily
exonerates the offender and poses further danger to the victim. A
provision in the law which states that the “subsequent valid
marriage between the offender and the offended party shall
extinguish the criminal action or the penalty imposed” gives an
easy way-out for the offender which incentivizes him to carry out the
crime.
Once the female victim marries the offender, she no longer has legal
remedy to file an action for the rape that happened before the
marriage. It also recognizes that “if the offender is the legal
husband…the subsequent forgiveness by the wife who is the
offended party… shall extinguish the criminal action or the
penalty.” 
the shroud of marriage which can involve a whole range of abuses -
physical, sexual, and/or psychological - that can happen over a
prolonged period of time.
WHAT ARE THE EXISTING LAWS OR POLICIES RELATED TO
THE ISSUE?
Article II Section 11 of the 1987 Constitution provides that “the State
values the dignity of every human person and guarantees full
respect for human rights.” Further, Section 14 of the same Article
provides that “the State recognizes the role of women in nation-
building and shall ensure the fundamental equality before the
law of women and men”.
Section 12 of Republic Act 9710 or the Magna Carta of Women
(MCW) provides for the amendment or repeal of laws or provisions
of laws that are discriminatory to women which, among others, would
include Republic Act 8353.
HAS THE SUPREME COURT ISSUED A RULING RELATED TO
THE ISSUE? OR WHAT ARE THE RECENT RULINGS OF THE
SUPREME COURT RELATED TO THE ISSUE?
SC has ruled, among others, that in rape cases, the moral
character of the victim is immaterial. Rape may be committed not
only against single women and children but also against those who
are married, middle-aged, separated, or pregnant.
It has ruled that sexual intercourse, albeit within the realm of
marriage, if not consensual is rape. (People vs Jumawan, 21 April
2014); that a prostituted person may also be a victim of rape.
(People v. Espino, June 2008); and that even the existence of an
illicit affair between the accused and the victim does not, on its
own, rule out rape as it does not necessarily mean that consent
was present. (People vs Saysot-Cias, June 2011).
The recently decided cases also pronounce that the law does not
impose a burden on the rape victim to prove resistance because it is
not an element of rape. (People vs Suarez, January 2015).
Rape is subjective and not everyone responds in the same way to an
attack by a sexual fiend. There is no stereotypical form of reaction
for a woman when facing a traumatic experience, such as a sexual
assault (People vs Achas, 20 March 2014).
WHAT ARE THE EXPERIENCES OF OTHER COUNTRIES IN
ADDRESSING THE ISSUE?
The provision in the rape law which ends criminal prosecution in the
event of marriage between the offender and the victim was
ABOLISHED in Mexico in 1991, Colombia in 1997, Peru in 1999,
and Ethiopia in 2005.
Under the Indian Penal Code, rape is a non-compoundable
offense, an offense against society and is not a matter to be left
for the parties to compromise and settle. In a landmark judgment, 1. PCW proposes the following salient features of the new
the SC ruled that a rapist’s offer to marry the rape survivor could Anti-Rape Law:
never be a ground for letting off the guilty lightly for two major a. Specify that rape is “a sexual assault that
reasons: one, it would encourage the convicts to pressurize rape violates a person’s right to personal security and
survivors to reach a compromise and two, rape is a crime against bodily integrity with the essential element of lack of
society. consent”;
b. The crime is committed by:
i. a man who has carnal knowledge of a
woman without her consent, whether or not the
Non-compoundable offences are those offences where, the woman suffers injuries;
complainant (one who has filed the case, i.e. the victim), CANNOT ii. a man who touches or inserts his
enter into a compromise and agree to have the charges dropped penis into the female’s inner or outer
against the accused, bc the nature of offence is so grave and vaginal labia, without her consent, whether
criminal, that the accused cannot be allowed to go scot-free. or not the woman suffers injuries;
iii. a man who touches or inserts his
penis into another person’s mouth or anal
WHAT ARE THE CONSIDERATIONS IN ADDRESSING THIS orifice, without the person’s consent,
ISSUE IN THE COUNTRY? whether or not the person suffers injuries;
iv. a person who inserts any instrument
Promoting women’s rights and gender equality or object, including a finger, into the genital
Rape is a crime involving power relations between the offender and or anal orifice of another person, without
the victim, and rooted in male dominance and female subordination. the latter’s consent.
It is no doubt, the result of disparities in the status and situations of c. The crime is committed under any of the
women and men - between the more powerful and the oppressed. following circumstances:
The Anti-Rape Law should be viewed from a perspective that i. Through lack of victim’s consent,
promotes the right of the more vulnerable groups and ensures force, threat or intimidation;
their freedom from violence. ii. Through fraudulent machination or
abuse of authority;
Responding to International Commitments iii. In coercive or other similar
Article 2 of the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of circumstances rendering the complainant
Discrimination Against Women (CEDAW) calls on the States Parties incapable of giving consent, including
to condemn discrimination against women in all its forms, and agree forcing another individual to sexually
to pursue by all appropriate means and without delay a policy of assault the victim;
eliminating discrimination against women. iv. When the offended person is deprived
of reason or otherwise unconscious, or is
While the Philippines has made considerable progress and demented even though none of the
milestones in keeping up with this commitment, the 2016 CEDAW circumstances mentioned above be
Committee Concluding Observations on the Philippines’ Combined present, provided that he/she is not in
7th and 8th Periodic Reports raised concerns over the fact that his/her lucid interval during the sexual act.
statutory rape under the Anti-Rape Law of 1997 (Republic Act No. v. Age of Statutory Rape: When the
8353) remains limited to cases wherein the victim is under the age of offended party is under sixteen (16) years
12. Thus, the CEDAW Committee recommends expediting the of age even though none of the
amendment of the Anti-Rape Law of 1997 putting lack of circumstances mentioned above be
consent as primary element of the definition of rape and raising present;
the minimum age of sexual consent which is presently set too d. Define “consent” as the voluntary agreement to
low at 12 years to at least 16 years. engage in the sexual activity in question, provided:
i. the person consenting fully
Moreover, the United Nations Sustainable Development Goals, understands what is being proposed;
particularly Goal No. 5 pertaining to Gender Equality, targets, among ii. the person consenting is aware of the
others, the elimination of all forms of violence against all women and societal standards of what is proposed;
girls in the public and private spheres including trafficking and sexual iii. agreements or disagreements will be
and other types of exploitation. respected equally;
iv. both parties enter into the relationship
Alignment with National Priorities or proposal voluntarily; and
Amending the Anti-Rape Law is consistent with the new v. both parties are mentally competent.
administration’s agenda on women’s rights. More importantly, it e. Specify that the use of weapon, or other external
responds to the mandate of Congress under the Magna Carta of force causing physical injuries maiming,
Women to amend or repeal laws that are discriminatory to women. disfigurement, or endangerment of the life of the
victim be considered as one of the aggravating
circumstances of the crime.
CONCLUSION
The Anti-Rape Law of 1997, once amended, will become a more 2. An amendment to Article 266-D is also proposed to avoid
effective instrument in protecting our people, especially the misinterpretation, to read as:
women and the children, from the most heinous form of sexual "Article 266-D. Presumptions. - Any physical overt act
violence. It will transform the law into a more gender-responsive one manifesting resistance against the act of rape in any degree
as it addresses gaps and lapses which its original crafters failed to from the offended party, or where the offended party is so
consider. situated as to render her/him incapable of giving valid
consent, may be accepted as evidence in the prosecution of
POLICY RECOMMENDATION the acts punished under Article 266-A. However, the
 absence of physical resistance must not be taken as
consent on the part of the complainant. "
3. PCW also calls on the SC to consider issuing a “Rule on
Trial of Rape Cases” which may include the following:
a. Application of the “rape shield rule” as provided
for in Section 6 of Republic Act 8505.
b. Guiding principles on the appreciation of
evidence in rape cases.
c. Child and gender-sensitive decorum for lawyers,
prosecutors, judges and other court personnel
during trial of rape cases.