Vous êtes sur la page 1sur 3

1.0 In paragraph 1.

0 of the counter-affidavit, the respondent asserts that the elements of the


alleged physical and sexual violence under R.A. 9262 (Violence Against Women and their Children)
effectively takes the instant complaint for rape outside of the purview of R.A. 8353 (Anti-Rape Law)
inasmuch as the provisions of the former have superseded the latter. This position is untenable. For a
given set of fact and circumstances which could fall under R.A. 9262 or R.A. 8353, the victim has the
option to file a complaint under either law. The Anti-Violence Against Women and their Children Act
does not preclude a victim from filing under the Anti-Rape-Law. The instant complaint refers to the acts
committed by the respondent while the complainant and the respondent were living together. It does
not include the act committed by the respondent against the complainant on 27 June 2010, which is the
act subject of the complaint filed for violation of R.A. 9262.

2.0 In paragraphs 2.0 to 4.0 of the counter-affidavit, the respondent made much of the fact that
there are inconsistencies between the Sinumpaang-Salaysay dated 02 August 2010 submitted by the
complainant for the present case and the Sworn Statement taken by PO2 Arlene R. Atienza which was
attached to the first complaint for violation for R.A. 9262. First of all, such inconsistencies are merely
trivial and inconsequential. Secondly, such inconsistencies were borne out of the fact that when the
complainant gave her sworn statement to the police, she was still not in her proper state of mind as a
result of the physical and sexual violence that had just been inflicted on her. Thirdly, inconsistencies in
testimonies which are not material to the case have been held by the Supreme Court as badges of a
credible testimony. Thus, in one case, the Court said:

Testimonial discrepancies on minor details tend to strengthen rather


than weaken credibility as they erase any suspicion of any rehearsal
before the witnesses testified in court. It would perhaps have been
more suspicious if the prosecution witnesses had been able to describe
with precision the exact sequence of events (People v. Pasco, 181 SCRA
233).

Furthermore, the paragraph 8 of the Sinumpaang-Salaysay should have little or no effect on the present
complaint because it does not pertain to the acts of rape committed by the respondent which are the
subjects of said complaint.

3.0 In paragraph 5.0 of the counter-affidavit, the respondent asks, Why would an individual claim
that she has been starved of food when she could go shopping and eat out anytime she pleases while
indulging in lifes many luxuries using a credit card which the offender pays for? For a majority of these
purchases, the respondent was with the complainant and as soon as the purchase was made, the
respondent took the purchased items and brought them home.

4.0 In paragraphs 7.0 and 8.0 of the complaint-affidavit, respondent tried to show that Variety King
Restaurant closed down sometime in 2002. The truth of the matter is that it was operating until 2008.
(The testimony of Marquez should be reproduced here to rebut the Certification of the Barangay
Chairman Victor del Prado.)
5.0 In paragraph 10.0 of the complaint-affidavit, the respondent asserted and emphasized that the
complainant was always free to go wherever she pleased and that she was even able to go to
Hongkong on two occasions. In the last sentence of said paragraph, the respondent states: The same
scenario persisted all throughout their affair, it was respondent who was made to foot the bill as
complainant was without any job or source of income. All of the above only serve to sharpen the
image of the complainant as a young woman trapped in an abusive relationship. The complainant was
wholly dependent financially on the respondent, as was in fact, admitted by the respondent in the above
quoted sentence of the complaint-affidavit. After a severe case of physical and sexual violence, the
respondent used the Hongkong trips to placate the complainant. The complainant was allowed to drive
the vehicles owned by the respondent simply because the latter often used the complainant as his
personal driver. The fact that the complainant came back to the condominium owned by the respondent
despite being free to go wherever she pleased underscores the fact that the complainant displayed the
typical psychology of battered women.

"Battered women are trapped in a web of dependency and need


support systems to get out," contends Sarah M. Buel, assistant district
attorney and supervisor of domestic-violence prosecution for Norfolk
County, Massachusetts. Typically, victims make many efforts to get away
from violent partners, Buel told a symposium on domestic violence
sponsored by Harvard University. But, lacking in money, a place to go,
and options for quickly supporting themselves, most are forced to
return, and are socialized to extend forgivenessone more timeto
their typically apologetic mates. More than 80% have left five or more
times. (Psychology Today
http://www.psychologytoday.com/articles/199205/why-do-they-stay:
last accessed September 10, 2010)

A battered woman has been defined as a woman "who is repeatedly


subjected to any forceful physical or psychological behavior by a man
in order to coerce her to do something he wants her to do without
concern for her rights. Battered women include wives or women in
any form of intimate relationship with men. Furthermore, in order to
be classified as a battered woman, the couple must go through the
battering cycle at least twice. Any woman may find herself in an
abusive relationship with a man once. If it occurs a second time, and
she remains in the situation, she is defined as a battered woman.

Battered women exhibit common personality traits, such as low self-


esteem, traditional beliefs about the home, the family and the female
sex role; emotional dependence upon the dominant male; the
tendency to accept responsibility for the batterer's actions; and false
hopes that the relationship will improve.

xxx xxx xxx


To understand the syndrome properly, however, one's viewpoint
should not be drawn from that of an ordinary, reasonable person.
What goes on in the mind of a person who has been subjected to
repeated, severe beatings may not be consistent with -- nay,
comprehensible to -- those who have not been through a similar
experience. Expert opinion is essential to clarify and refute common
myths and misconceptions about battered women.

xxx xxx xxx

"xxx the battered woman usually has a very low opinion of herself.
She has x x x self-defeating and self-sacrificing characteristics. x x x
[W]hen the violence would happen, they usually think that they
provoke[d] it, that they were the one[s] who precipitated the violence[;
that] they provoke[d] their spouse to be physically, verbally and even
sexually abusive to them."48

According to Dra. Dayan, there are a lot of reasons why a battered


woman does not readily leave an abusive partner -- poverty, self-
blame and guilt arising from the latter's belief that she provoked the
violence, that she has an obligation to keep the family intact at all
cost for the sake of their children, and that she is the only hope for
her spouse to change. (People v. Genosa 419 SCRA 537).

6.0 In paragraphs 18.0 to 19.0 of the complaint-affidavit, the respondent keeps referring to
AOG as Act of God. It is patently erroneous as AOG is the acronym for the medical phrase Age
of Gestation which means the number of months the fetus has been in the womb of the mother.
AOG has no reference whatsoever to the cause of the abortion.