Tuesday, March 18, 2008
Rape of Male By Female - Is It Contemplated By R.A. 8353?
In the Bar Exams Forum, of which I am an active member, I posed the following potential bar question.
Luna, an ambrosial widowed landlady, was enamored with his boarder Michael, a good-looking 26-year old bar reviewee. Naked, Luna silently entered into the room of Michael who was asleep one rainy night. She took off the boxer short of Michael and started manipulating his genital. Meantime, Michael was dreaming of having sex with her favorite classmate. Feeling that Michael was getting an erection, Luna had his genital inserted into her vagina and eventually had carnal knowledge of him. Awaken, Michael shouted for help. Luna was charged with rape by sexual assault.
a) Was the charge proper?
b) What if Michael had a heart attack upon seeing Luna on the top of him and he eventually died? Was Luna liable for the death of Michael?
This question has turned into a lively discussion among the forum members, viz :
Lito Basilio (Law Student)
Let me try to offer an answer. This is both my observation and suggested answer rolled into one.
The reality that males are raped by females is not widely accepted. Some people view it as an impossible act - that a male can’t be sexually assaulted by a female - and others view it as sexually titillating. The existence of female perpetrators and male victims confronts many of our most firmly held notions about women, men, sexuality, power, and sexual assault. It challenges our very beliefs about what sex is.
The myth that men can’t be victimized particularly by women is firmly entrenched in our culture. Many men who dare acknowledge that they were sexually abused by women are cruelly laughed at and humiliated.
Most do not dare say a word about it for fear of feeling any more ashamed than they already feel. Many men who were raped by women feel deeply ashamed of themselves, their sexuality, and their gender.
However, rape perpetrated by women against minors and adults has long been recognized in foreign jurisdictions. There have been many cases in U.S. and African courts where women are convicted of raping men.
Under our jurisdiction, based on expanded definition of rape, rape may now be committed by a female who, under any of the circumstances mentioned in paragraph 1 of RA 8353, shall commit an act of sexual assault by inserting any instrument or object into the anus or vagina of a female, or anus of a male.
If the law penalizes a female for the degrading and perverse act of inserting an instrument or object into the anus of a male, I can see no reason why a more degrading and perverse act of Luna would not be penalized.
I therefore posit that the facts above is within the purview of the expanded definition of rape. Luna was correctly and properly charged. He would be charged with a composite crime of rape with homicide if death of the victim resulted from the rape.
Dark Justice (Law Student)
im a freshman law student, so i hope you guys give me a little more slack
i have just one question: isn't it absurd that it is Luna who caused the insertion of Michael's penis into her vagina and yet she was charged with rape by sexual assault?
as what RA 8353 provides:
Rape is Committed -
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 way of simplification and emphasis, rape is committed by any PERSON (male of female) who, under any of the circumstances mentioned in paragraph 1 hereof (unconscious), shall commit an act of sexual assault by inserting any instrument or object (a vagina may be construed as object) into the genital (penis) or anal orifice of another person (male or female)
inserting any instrument or object into the anal orifice i can imagine... but inserting an object or instrument into the penis?
based on the facts, nothing was inserted into the penis.. rather the penis was caused to be inserted into the vagina..
i see a problem in the interpretation of the said provision with regard to the application to the case at bar..
anyways, that's just my humble observation..
It really does appear absurd when you apply RA 8353 to the letter.
However, RA 8353 contemplates that a FEMALE commits a crime of rape by sexual assault against a FEMALE or MALE, to wit :
1) by inserting any instrument or object into the genital or anal orifice of a FEMALE.
2) by inserting any instrument or object into the anal orifice of a MALE.
My point is that if the law considers above number 2 as a crime of rape, why a FEMALE who had the penis of an unconscious MALE inserted into her vagina would not be regarded as a crime of rape? The latter act is much more perverse and degrading than a FEMALE’s act of inserting any instrument or object into the anal orifice of a MALE.
I believe the announced purpose of RA 8353 is to expand the definition of rape.
To exclude from the definition the act of Luna, whereas a FEMALE’s act of inserting any object or instrument into the anal orifice of a MALE is included, would be an unintelligible, capricious and arbitrary delimitation of what the law seeks to expand.
There’s no rhyme or reason in giving protection against the FEMALE’s insertion of an instrument or object into the anal orifice of a MALE and yet refusing such protection to a MALE when, without his consent, a FEMALE had his penis inserted into her vagina.
Atty. Fred Pamaos
Allow me to join the fray. As noted in the discussion, the act penalized is: (1) "inserting" the assailant's penis "into" the mouth or anal orifice of the victim; or (2) "inserting" an instrument/or object "into" the genital or anal orifice of the victim. The term "into" is defined as:
A preposition signifying to the inside of; within. It expresses entrance, or a passage from the outside of a thing to its interior, and follows verbs expressing motion." (Black's Law Dictionary, Sixth Ed., p. 822)
In other words, the law, as it currently stands, contemplates that the object (that goes inside an orifice) belongs to the assailant, while the orifice (into which something is inserted) belongs to the victim. In the illustration given above, the object that went inside belongs to the victim, while the orifice belongs to the assailant. It's not within the language of the law.
It looks like my advocacy is not gaining ground.
I can’t help but be impressed with Atty. Fred’s argument. But I’m not fully convinced, sir. I believe Luna’s perverse act is within the expanded definition of the crime of rape by sexual assault. My reasons are :
1. Rape is now a crime against persons, meaning the victim may either be a female or male. According to the express language of the law, the crime may now be committed by a female against a male which was not a case in crimes against chastity. The reclassification of the crime of rape now allows rape of male by a female.
2. It is not only the textual elements of the crime of rape by sexual assault that qualifies the felony. I am of the view that other wrongful acts analogous to or much more evil than any elements of the crime of rape by sexual assault have to be taken into account in order not to defeat the very purpose of the law – i.e. to expand the definition of the crime of rape.
Atty. Fred Pamaos
Lito, a good advocate defends his stand even if it momentarily loses ground. Anyway, I fully agree with the 1st paragraph of your statement. As to the second paragraph, criminal laws are strictly construed. If it was the intention of Congress to include acts similar to that of Luna, then it should have done so. Perhaps Sen. Kiko should have included that in his bill; he should have been spared from the biting comment of Macka.
a) there was no rape. the law is clear. it should not be enlarged beyond its clear meaning.
the crime could possibly be act of lasciviousness.
b) yes. the crime would be (my guess) homicide thru acts of lasciviousness
Ultrasapien (Law Student)
my answer would be:
1. there was no rape by luna.
a woman can commit rape only when, through sexual assault, a woman inserts any instrument or object into the genital or anal orifice of another person. nothing was inserted into michael's genital or anal orifice. hence no rape.
2. yes luna is criminally liable. ( but i'm not sure for what crime)
first, criminal liability is incurred by any person committing a felony although the wrongful act done be different from that which he intended. this is par. 1 article 4 of the rpc. for this to be true, the wrongful act done must be at least a felony.
so, is the act of luna of inserting michael's penis into her vagina considered a felony? i think so. although the most appropriate i could think of is unjust vexation. it cannot be acts of lasciviousness be cause the same presupposes that there was no carnal knowledge. neither could it be seduction because michael is not a minor nor a feeble minded person.
the appropriate crime, i think, is homicide thru reckless inprudence
second, a felony is commited not only through dolo or CULPA.
third, the act of luna was the proximate cause of michael's death.
a woman can commit rape only when, through sexual assault, a woman inserts any instrument or object into the genital or anal orifice of another person. nothing was inserted into michael's genital or anal orifice. hence no rape. ]
is this the ONLY manner by which a woman can commit rape?
can she rape another woman?
Ultrasapien (Law Student)
to your question cesmc:
i'd say yes.
art. 266A no. 2 of the RPC says:
"rape is committed......by any person, by any of the circumstances mentioned in par. 1 hereof, shall commit an act of sexual assault by inserting his penis into another person's mouth or anal orifice....."
because of the phrase "shall insert his penis......" the person referred to here is a man because only a man has a penis. a woman has nothing to insert except for an object or instrument
to continue....."or any instrument or object, into the genital or anal orifice of another person"
the last mentioned refers to any person, man or woman. if a woman inserts an object into the genitals or anal orifice of another woman, i'd say there is rape.
a woman has nothing to insert except for an object or instrument. hence, the only way for a woman to commit rape is by inserting an object or instrument in to the genitals or anal orifice of another person.
a woman may also commit rape by indispensable participation, like when she holds down the victim while a man commits the actual rape
yea, in conspiring to commit rape, they all share equally in the count.
Let me join the enlightening discussion, in fact the said principle as correctly pointed out by cesmc was promulgated by the SC in its ruling on People vs. Banzales March 20, 1987 G.R. L-63260, a portion of the decision is reproduced below:
xxx"The trial court correctly found Dialola a woman, equally culpable as a principal together with Banzales for the crime of rape. Appellants' combined actions easily induce the belief that everything had been prearranged between them in order that Banzales might carry out his bestial designs upon the victim. Dialola cooperated in the perpetration of the rape by Banzales by acts without which the crime could not have been consummated. She paved the way by luring the unsuspecting victim into a secluded wooded area, delivering her to Banzales and then covering the girl's mouth so that she could not summon for help. The criminal responsibility of Dialola has been established."xxxx
Elbert (Law Student)
my humble answer to this question is that.. i agree with fred in the sense that the crime committed was not rape by sexual assault. the crime committed, as i see the facts, is only acts of lasciviousness