INTERVIEW QUESTIONNAIRE

Date:
Place of Interview:
Name of Interviewee: Jan Rhoneil R. Santillana
Age: 24
Occupation: 3rd year Law Student

1. What do you know about the Woman’s Honor Doctrine or the “Maria Clara Doctrine”?

- Based on case law or on our philippine jurisprudence, This refers to the circumstances
affecting the testimonies of women in which, the court recognizes a woman's credibility against
abuse, as the doctrine states: “Filipino women, would not admit that they have been abused
unless that abuse had actually happened.” “That this is due to women's natural instinct to
protect their honor.” This refers to the upholding of the courts, the veracity and credibility of a
woman despite existence of delay or inconsistency with high regard and impression of
preserving the honor and chastity of a Filipino woman.

2. Do you know about cases wherein it was applied?

- It was first applied in a case ruled upon by the Supreme Court in 1960 entitled: People vs Tano
involving robbery in a band with rape. Numerous subsequent cases involving rape applied this
doctrine. For example, In People vs Cabilao June 25, 1992, the High Court, in citing the
established precedents before it, further stated: “ Verily, a rape victim would not publicly
disclose that she had been raped and undergo the trouble and humiliation of trial if her motive
was not to bring to justice the person who had abused her”. “More specifically, no young
Filipina of decent repute would publicly admit that she has been criminally abused and ravished
unless it is the truth. It is her natural instinct to protect her honor”. (People v. Ramilo, 146
SCRA 258 [1986], citing People v. Alcantara, 126 SCRA 425 [1983]; People v. Gamez, 124
SCRA 260 [1983]; People v. Taño, 109 Phil. 912 [1960]; and People v. Gan, 46 SCRA 667
[1972])

- But in one case not involving rape, but of charges of murder including an attempted murder of
a girl, (People vs Puros and Caag, G.R. No. L-44810 May 21, 1984) the court appreciated the
victim's candor in with respect to the certainty and positiveness of her identification of the
appellants notwithstanding that she named only the two appellants admitting inability to identify
a third companion.

3. What is the effect of the application of said doctrine to: a) Victim b) Accused c) Court/Judiciary

- a) for the Victim: her testimony is entitled to credibility notwithstanding there was delay in
reporting the rape incident. The Supreme Court held in cases such as: People vs. Malagar 238
SCRA 512 [1994] that:
“Vacillation in the filing of [a] complaint by [a] rape victim is not an uncommon
phenomenon. This crime is normally accompanied by the rapist’s threat on the victim’s life,
and the fear can last for quite a while. There is also the natural reluctance of a woman to
admit her sullied chastity, accepting thereby all the stigma it leaves, and then to expose
herself to morbid curiosity of the public whom she may likely perceive rightly or wrongly,
to be more interested in the prurient details of the ravishment than in her vindication and the
punishment of the rapist. “In People vs. Coloma 222 SCRA 255 [1993]we have even
 considered an 8-year delay in reporting the long history of rape by the victim’s father as
understandable and so not enough torender incredible the complaint of a 13-year old
daughter”.
“Where the complainant or victim has fully explained her failure to report the sexual abuse
immediately after the rape, there is no reason to cast doubt on the veracity of her testimony.”
(People v. Cabradilla, L-33788, November 29, 1984, 133 SCRA 413). The delay in reporting the
crime to the authorities may be due to fear of the malefactor or the shame that would result f
rom the disclosure of the dishonor done to the offended woman (People vs. Tano, 109 Phil. 912;
People vs. Castillo, 111 Phil. 1024).
– b) for the Accused: then he would not be able to assail or attack the credibility of the
victim's testimony to be inconsistent on the ground of delay to report the same.
– c) for the Court/Judiciary: as the tribunal having the sole discretion in determining the cases
between such victim and accused, then it would uphold the veracity and credibility of a
woman victim as a disputable presumption under appropriate circumstances, as opposed to
the accused with having the burden to disprove the same, given the existence of the doctrine
as against his claim.

4. What are the advantages of the doctrine? What are its disadvantages?

- as previously stated and established under our jurisprudence, its advantage is that, when delay
occurs in reporting incidents of abuse, it would not be detrimental or fatal on the credibility
aspect of a woman victim's testimony/defense. The disadvantage would be, as against the
accused, is that the court might conduct a misapprehension of facts in favor the woman victim,
due to the fact that there was delay. Also, such would amount to a considerable bias in favor of
the woman victim, as the court would create in her favor a disputable presumption of
credibility.

5. Do you know about the People vs. Amarela case promulgated January 17, 2018 by the Supreme
Court?

- It is about a rape case of an adult woman that took place in Davao by several accused involved
at different instances or intervals. In the end the High Court ruled in favor of the Accused and
regarded as entirely doubtful, the credibility of the victim for being inconsistent when compared
between her affidavit-complaint and her testimonies made in court.

6. What is the effect of the ruling in the said case to the Maria Clara Doctrine?

- The court would have disregarded probable gender bias in making its examinations upon the
veracity and credibility of the testimonies made by a woman victim as opposed to an already
unequal stand/footing of an accused in the eyes of the court/law.

7. Can the Supreme Court validly make such ruling in the said case?

- I believe so, because not all rulings are permanent, as times change as well as new
developments that come across, the Supreme Court, in any case for any matter, may abandon its
previous rulings and provide amendments in order to adapt and look prospectively further
beyond what it had established for a more proper administration of justice.
8. What are the possible effects or implications of the ruling in the Amarela case to: a) Victim b)
Accused c) Court/Judiciary d) Future Laws and Jurisprudence.

– a) for the Victim: A woman victim may no longer enjoy the disputable presumption and
impression upon the court, in regarding her credibility, on account of her gender and in
upholding her honor as a woman, despite circumstances of delay and probable
inconsistencies appearing on the case involving abuse.

– b) for the Accused: He will no longer be put on with an “unfair disadvantage” as the
Supreme Court held in the said case, and will now be equally tried with the victim in so far
as concerning the issues on/or challenges made upon, the credibility and testimonies of a
woman victim.

– c) for the Court/Judiciary: There will now be an observance of a more fair and impartial trial
on the claims and defenses on the side of the accused in assailing, challenging or attacking
the credibility of a woman victim-witness, in order to equally uphold the innocence of an
accused on account of the observance of the quantum of evidence required by law that is
proof beyond reasonable doubt.

– d) Future Laws and Jurisprudence: Following the recent ruling, then future laws and
jurisprudence would now be framed in consonance to this matter as its precedent unless, of
course, if validly challenged and assailed upon under certain circumstances.