asstore. Being a commercial shop that caters to the
The decision was
public, the video rental outlet was open to the public.
As such, it is not attributed the sanctity of privacy that
jurisprudence accords to residential abodes. Hence,
dwelling cannot be appreciated as an aggravating
circumstance in the crime of rape.
Dispositive: MODIFIED. Guilty of two separate offenses:
rape and robbery. For the crime of rape, appellant is
hereby SENTENCED to reclusion perpetua and to pay
Private Complainant Amy de Guzman P50,000 as
indemnity ex delicto and P30,000 as moral damages. For
the crime of robbery, appellant is sentenced to an
indeterminate penalty of two (2) years and four (4)
months of prision correccional, as minimum, to eight (8)
years of prision mayor, as maximum; and to pay De
Guzman P2,487.65 as actual damages.
NOTE: the case also considered ruling that there is no
complex crime of robbery with rape in this case. The
rape on this case was not committed on the occasion of
robbery. So separate appreciation of rape and robbery.
The doctrine became a part of the Supreme Court of the
Philippines' jurisprudence sometime in 1960 following
the People v. Taño case. The high court through Justice
Alejo Labrador has asserted a "well known fact" that
women, especially Filipinos "would not admit that they
have been abused unless that abuse had actually
happened."[1] The court said that women's natural
instict is to protect their honor.[2]The case involved
three armed robbers who the court found liable
for taking turns in raping a woman.[3]
About 58 years later since the doctrine entered the high
court's jurisprudence, the Third Division of the Supreme
Court reverse a ruling on January 17, 2018 by a Davao
court on two people convicted of rape.[1] The 2018
decision was released in late-February.[4] The case
involves an alleged rape that happened in 2009 and the
two accused were sentenced of reclusión perpetua, or
forty years of imprisonment, in 2012.
affirmed by the Court of Appeals in 2016. [5]
The court described the doctrine as causing a "travesty
of justice" by putting the accused at an "unfair
disadvantage"[1], criticizing the doctrine for assuming
that no Filipina woman of "decent repute" would falsely
claim that she was abused. It urged for the acceptance
of the "realities of a woman’s dynamic role" in
Philippine society today so one can "evaluate the
testimony of a private complainant of rape
without gender bias or cultural misconception". It also
stated that the discrepancies in the alleged victim's
testimonies has casted doubt if the rape incident did
happen or not.[3]
This has led to concerns and speculations that the high
court has abandoned the doctrine.[1] The Gabriela
Women's Party condemned the decision which it
viewed made the Maria Clara doctrine invalid saying the
ruling reversal will empower rapists and disagreed with
the court's assessment of the societal status of
women.[4]
On February 21, 2018, Supreme Court's spokesperson,
Theodore Te has clarified that it was not the case since
the high court can only abandon a doctrine only during
a full session.[1]
SC: 'Maria Clara' doctrine alone not sufficient for rape
conviction
Ina Reformina, ABS-CBN News
Posted at Feb 20 2018 09:57 PM | Updated as of Feb 21
2018 06:26 AM
Gone were the days when a rape victim's testimony is
sufficient to convict the alleged rapist, solely because of
the belief that a typical Filipina, a "Maria Clara," would
not testify that she had been raped if it did not actually
happen.
The Supreme Court (SC), in a decision on January 17
penned by Associate Justice Samuel Martires, acquitted
two men previously convicted of rape by a trial court,
and affirmed by the appellate court, because the
testimony of alleged victim, alias "AAA," a housemaid,
proved incredible.
The so-called ‘Maria Clara’ or “women’s honor”
doctrine became part of Philippine jurisprudence in the
1960’s in the case involving the conviction of three
armed robbers who toork turns raping Herminigilda
Domingo.
The high court then "hinged on the impression that no
young Filipina of decent repute would publicly admit
that she has been sexually abused, unless that is the
truth, for it is her natural instinct to protect her honor."
In the recent case involving an appeal by Juvy D.
Amarela and Junard G. Racho, where the two allegedly
raped "AAA" in two separate instances, one after the
other, in Davao City in February 2009, the high court
said "today, we simply cannot be stuck to the Maria
Clara stereotype of a demure and reserved Filipino
woman" so as to "evaluate the testimony of a private
complainant of rape without gender bias or cultural
misconception."
The high court explained that the times have changed,
and with it the Filipina.
"We, should stay away from such mindset and accept
the realities of a woman's dynamic role in society today;
she who has over the years transformed into a strong
and confidently intelligent and beautiful person, willing
to fight for her rights.
"It is important to weed out these unnecessary notions
because an accused may be convicted solely on the
testimony of the victim, provided of course, that the
testimony is credible, natural, convincing, and
consistent with human nature and the normal course of
things," the high court said in its decision, as it stressed
that for a conviction of rape to rise, the victim's
narration and testimony must be believable beyond
reasonable doubt," the SC said.
VICTIM'S TESTIMONY NOT CREDIBLE
In the case of "AAA," the high court ruled that her
testimony cast a doubt on its very credibility and she
was not telling the truth in her narration. The following
circumstances were pointed out in the decision: (1)
AAA's version of the story in her complaint-affidavit
differed materially from her testimony in court; (2)
"AAA" could not have easily identified Amarela because
the crime scene was dark and she only saw him for the
first time; (3) her testimony lacked material details on
how she was brought under the stage against her will;
and (4) the medical findings did not corroborate
physical injuries and are inconclusive of any signs of
forced entry.
AAA's complaint-affidavit indicated that Amarela pulled
her away from the beauty contest stage to the daycare
center, where the rape occurred. However, in court,
"AAA" testified that Amarela grabbed her when she was
on the way to the comfort room.
"[T]he version in AAA's affidavit-complaint is remotely
different from her court testimony. At the first instance,
AAA claims that she was pulled away from the vicinity
of the stage; later, in court, she says that she was on her
way to the restroom when she was grabbed. By this
alone, we are hesitant to believe AAA's retraction
because it goes into whether it was even possible for
Amarela to abduct AAA against her will," the SC said.
As for Racho, the high court said that "[s]ince we doubt
AAA's account on how she was raped by Amarela, we
have to consider her testimony against Racho under the
same light."
Racho was instructed by his mother to accompany
"AAA," after the supposed rape by Amarela, to her
aunt's house against his will. "AAA" alleged that instead
of performing the task, Racho took her to a shanty and
raped her.
The high court said it was inclined to believe Racho's
narration that he and "AAA" parted ways when she
insisted she wanted to go home instead of going to her
aunt's house, since her home was in another town.
"To begin with, Racho did not even want to bring 'AAA'
to her aunt's house nearby. If he had the intention to
have sex with 'AAA,' Racho would not have declined her
mother's instruction. His reason for leaving 'AAA' to go
home alone is supported by the fact that he was able to
immediately come home right after he left with 'AAA,'"
the SC said.
Further, the high court noted that 'AAA's' lacerations
were only at the 9 o'clock and 3 o'clock positions of the
hymen, and not in various directions which could have
established non-consensual sex, according to studies.
"Considering the locality of these lacerations ('AAA's'
case), we cannot completely rule out the probability
that 'AAA' voluntarily had sex that night. Moreover, the
absence o f bruises on AAA's thighs - when she said she
was punched there twice-reinforces the theory that
'AAA' may have had consensual intercourse," the SC
said.
Rape is essentially a crime committed through force or
intimidation, against the victim's will, the high court
stressed.
The high court pointed out that it was the prosecution's
duty to properly evaluate the evidence against Amarela
or Racho, and what actually happened could not be
ascertained based on the testimony alone of "AAA."
Gabriela fears SC ruling on ‘Maria Clara’ doctrine could
lead to more rape cases
MANILA, Philippines — Party-list group Gabriela
expressed apprehension that the ruling of the Supreme
Court’s Third Division on the “Maria Clara” or the
women’s honor doctrine may not be sufficient for rape
conviction and could even “open the floodgates to
many more rape (cases).”
“They can now go on a rampage with the knowledge
that the courts will most likely dismiss the rape case,”
the group said.
During a news conference on Wednesday, Gabriela Rep.
Emerenciana “Emmi” de Jesus said the ruling had put
the burden of proof on the rape victim.
According to the group, the division’s ruling “essentially
renders invalid the “women’s honor doctrine” that puts
credence on the victim’s testimonies, based on the fact
that admitting the rape itself is a very difficult decision
for Filipino women in a social setup that puts the shame
on raped women and silently condones the attacker.”
“This Supreme Court ruling will surely add a very heavy
layer of hardships and even higher financial and social
strain especially on poor women victims, while
practically giving perpetrators an easy way out,”
Gabriela added.
The January 17 ruling penned by Associate Justice
Samuel Martires said, “We simply cannot be stuck to
the Maria Clara stereotype of a demure and reserved
Filipino woman. We should stay away from such
mindset and accept the realities of a woman’s dynamic
role in society today; she who has over the years
transformed into a strong and confidently intelligent
and beautiful person, willing to fight for her rights.”
Gabriela secretary-general Joms Salvador noted that the
Third Division’s description of the doctrine as non-
sequiturcould equally describe the “absurd basis” for
assuming that Filipino women’s position in society has
improved and are no longer prone to abuse by men.
“There is no reality-based connection to be drawn
linking women’s transformed social status or even
willingness to fight for their own rights to making
women immune to rape and other sexual attacks. The
reasoning that the Supreme Court used flies in the face
of actual rise of reported and unreported rapes, sexual
harassment, bullying, trafficking, and other crimes
against women,” Salvador said.
Meanwhile, Bayan Muna party-list Rep. Carlos Zarate
lamented that the country’s justice system remains
heavily reliant on testimonial evidence rather than on
forensic evidence.
“In most cases, it’s the victim who’s just talking,” he
said.
Zarate added that in a number of rape cases it would
take a while before the victims come out and complain
because of the trauma suffered. He also said that minor
inconsistencies in their testimonies are expected
because it was naturally hard for the victims to recount
their experience in the witness stand.
The Third Division acquitted Juvy Amarela and Junard
Racho of rape. They were convicted by a Davao court
and were sentenced to suffer reclusion peprpetua or up
to 40 years imprisonment for the alleged crime
committed in 2009. The decision was affirmed by the
Court of Appeals.

SC on rape acquittal: Stay away from ‘Maria Clara’
mindset
By: Tetch Torres-Tupas- Reporter / @T2TupasINQ
INQUIRER.net / 01:13 PM February 20, 2018
In acquitting two men convicted of rape, the Supreme
Court, in a decision made public Tuesday, said the
public “should stay away” from the ‘Maria Clara’
stereotype or the demure and reserved type of Filipina.
“Today, we simply cannot be stuck to the Maria Clara
stereotype of a demure and reserved Filipino woman.
We, should stay away from such mindset and accept the
realities of a woman’s dynamic role in society today;
she who has over the years transformed into a strong
and confidently intelligent and beautiful person, willing
to fight for her rights,” the Supreme Court said in a
decision penned by Associate Justice Samuel Martires.
The High Court acquitted Juvy Amarela and Junard
Racho of rape. Both were convicted by a Davao court
and were sentenced to suffer reclusion perpetua or up
to 40 years imprisonment. The decision was affirmed by
the Court of Appeals.
ADVERTISEMENT
The incident happened in 2009. The victim was
watching a beauty pageant when she felt the need to go
to the toilet. On her way, she said Amarela pulled her
under a 2-feet high makeshift stage where she was
punched and raped.
The victim said Amarela stopped and fled after three
men came. The men took her to a hut but she said she
managed to escape and hid in a neighboring house and
then was taken to Racho’s house.
Racho’s mother then asked her son to take the victim to
her aunt. However, the victim
was instead brought to a shanty where she was
punched and again raped.
In acquitting the two, the Supreme Court said the
testimony given by the victim in court was different
from her affidavit. The High Court also questioned how
the victim was able to identify Amarela when she
herself admitted that the area where the rape
supposedly happened was dark and was surrounded by
trees.
“Her claim that she was forcibly brought under a
makeshift stage, stripped naked and then raped seems
unrealistic and beyond human experience,” the High
Court added.
The Supreme Court also noted that medical
examination on the victim also failed to indicate any
physical injuries or that she was raped by the two
accused.
While medico legal findings are not controlling, the High
Court cited a study showing the “most common
laceration sites” for rape victims.
“In the instant case…considering the locality of these
lacerations, we cannot completely rule out the
probability that [the victim] voluntarily had sex that
night. Moreover, the absence of bruises when she said
she was punched reinforces the theory that [the victim]
may have had consensual intercourse,” the Supreme
Court said.
“We have hinged on the impression that no young
Filipina of decent repute would publicly admit that she
has been sexually abused, unless that is the truth, for it
is her natural instinct to protect her honor (Woman’s
Honor Doctrine),” the High Court said.
However, in this day and age, the Supreme Court added
that such ‘misconception’ “would not only put the
accused at an unfair disadvantage, but creates a
travesty of justice.”
Woman's honor a fallacy? SC acquits men of rape over
‘unrealistic’ account
The Supreme Court does not apply the woman's honor
doctrine that presumes raped women to be telling the
truth
Published 1:04 PM, February 20, 2018
Updated 4:15 PM, February 20, 2018
RAPE. The Supreme Court acquits two men accused of
raping a woman within hours of each other citing the
'unrealistic' account of the victim. Photo by LeAnne
Jazul/Rappler
MANILA, Philippines – Inconsistencies in the account of
a woman victim were the basis of the Supreme Court
(SC) to acquit two men accused of raping her on the
same day within hours of each other.
In its acquittal of the two men, the SC did not apply a
decades-old doctrine called the women’s honor. Under
the doctrine, women are believed not to lie about being
raped because “women, especially Filipinos, would not
admit that they have been abused unless that abuse
had actually happened.”
The doctrine further said: “This is due to (women’s)
natural instinct to protect their honor. We cannot
believe that the offended party would have positively
stated that intercourse took place unless it did actually
took place.”
Associate Justice Samuel Martires wrote the decision of
acquittal saying the doctrine “borders on the fallacy of
non-sequitur.”
“We simply cannot be stuck to the Maria Clara
stereotype of a demure and reserved Filipino woman.
We should stay away from such mindset and accept the
realities of a woman’s dynamic role in society today;
she who has over the years transformed into a strong
and confidently intelligent and beautiful person, willing
to fight for her rights,” Martires wrote.
Third Division members Associate Justices Presbitero
Velasco Jr, Lucas Bersamin, Marvic Leonen and
Alexander Gesmundo concurred. The decision was
promulgated on January 17.
Raped twice on the same day
Juvy Amarela and Junard Racho were convicted of rape
by the Davao Regional Trial Court (RTC), later affirmed
by the Court of Appeals, for sexually assaulting a
housekeeper on February 10, 2009 only hours apart.
The woman’s story goes: she was watching a beauty
contest at 6 pm and on her way to a public bathroom
when Amarela pulled her towards a day care center.
The woman said Amarela punched her abdomen, and
boxed her upper thigh, rendering her too weak to fight
the man as he “placed himself on top of her and
inserted his penis inside her vagina and made a push
and pull movement.”
She shouted for help and was later rescued by 3 men.
Amarela fled at that point. The woman said the 3 men
brought her to a hut, and fearing their bad intentions,
she fled and went to the house of one Godo Dumandan,
who brought her to the Racho home.
Racho’s mother instructed him to take the woman to
victim to her aunt’s home. The woman said that’s when
Racho brought her to a shanty and raped her once
again. (READ: That thingy called rape culture)
Inconsistencies
The woman’s “inconsistent” testimonies led the SC to
conclude that the prosecution “has failed to prove (the
men’s) guilt beyond reasonable doubt.”
In the first alleged rape, the SC said the woman’s claim
that she was raped under a two-foot makeshift stage
“seems unrealistic and beyond human experience.”
The woman said in her affidavit complaint that Amarela
pulled her away from the stage of the beauty contest
and into the day care. On the stand, she said Amarela
pulled her while she was on her way to the bathroom,
so that no other people could have seen what was
happening.
The woman also admitted the place was dark, and that
she did not see Amarela’s face while he was raping her.
She said, however, that she saw Amarela’s face as he
was pulling her towards the day care center. Amarela
denied even being with the woman on that night.
The woman said Amarela raped her under a 2-foot
maekshift stage. “(The woman) failed to mention how
exactly Amarela pulled her to the makeshift stage
without any sign of struggle or resistance,” the SC said.
“Her claim that she was forcibly brought under a
makeshift stage, stripped naked, and then raped seems
unrealistic and beyond human experience,” the SC said.
The SC also noted that the woman “had no pertinent
physical findings/or physical injuries” despite claims she
was beaten.
Medico-legal not enough
The woman’s medico-legal report found complete
lacerations at two positions of her hymen. The SC cited
a study that says vaginal lacerations are injuries found
in both consensual and non-consensual sex.
“The absence of bruises on the woman’s thighs – where
she said she was punched there twice – reinforces the
theory that the woman may have had consensual
intercourse,” the SC said.
In the case of Racho, he admitted to taking the woman
to her aunt’s home upon his mother’s instruction but
denied raping her.
“Instead of reporting the incident to the police, the
woman insisted that she be brought to her aunt’s house
nearby. This is way beyond human experience. If the
woman had already told other people what happened,
there was no reason for her not to report the incident
to the proper authorities,” the SC said.
Racho said that the woman changed her mind as they
were going to her aunt's hourse. Instead, she wanted to
be brought to her own home.
Racho said that he didn’t want to go too far so he left
her, and he went back home.
The SC said Racho could have made an alibi of not being
with the woman at all that night; the court said the
mother could have also supported a cover story.
“The best defense for him was alibi which he thought he
did not have to raise, given that he was telling the truth
when he left the woman by herself to go home. To our
mind, these are badges of truth which persuade us that
Racho might be telling the truth,” the SC said.
“Henceforth, we are constrained to reverse the RTC and
the CA rulings due to the presence of lingering doubts
which are inconsistent with the requirement of guilt
beyond reasonable doubt as quantum of evidence to
convict an accused in a criminal case,” the SC said.
Amarela and Racho are ordered released from jail
“unless they are being held for other lawful cause.”
In May 2017, the SC acquitted a rape convict due to
insufficient evidence that the sex was not consensual,
saying that abrasions and contusions could also be
suffered during consensual sex. The man said the
woman was his girlfriend.
Before that, the SC also acquitted a rape convict
because the woman kept silent as two men raped her.
The woman said it was due to fear that the men might
stab her.
The SC acknowledged that decisions of the trial court
are usually given deference because the judges there
were the ones who got to observe the demeanor of the
victims and defendants. In this case, the SC said they
are forced to do away with that principle and
appreciate instead facts which could have been
misappreciated.
Women’s honor’ doctrine still holds, says UP law prof
Published February 20, 2018 10:32pm
By NICOLE-ANNE C. LAGRIMAS, GMA News
A criminal law professor on Tuesday said the "women's
honor" doctrine still holds even as a division of the
Supreme Court (SC) veered away from it as it acquitted
two rape convicts due to questions on the integrity of
their accuser's testimony.
Augusto Arreza, a professor at the University of the
Philippines' College of Law, said the SC Third Division's
remarks that the "Maria Clara" mindset is no longer
applicable in the present day "does not have anything
to do with the decision."
He interpreted this portion of the ruling as an "obiter
dictum," Latin for "by the way," or an expression of an
opinion with no binding force.
Arreza said the ruling came about after a "dissection" of
the testimony of the complainant to ascertain its
credibility.
"You have to remember the doctrine is based on the
presumption that the testimony of the offended party,
the victim, is credible. If the testimony is not credible,
you don't even have to apply the 'women's honor'
doctrine," he said in a phone interview.
The doctrine in question refers to the jurisprudence-
backed notion that a woman will not say she has been
sexually abused unless it is true out of a "natural
instinct" to "protect her honor."
Earlier sought for confirmation, SC spokesperson
Theodore Te said the ruling "speaks for itself."
He also said the ruling must be read in relation with a
Constitutional provision that states a doctrine made by
the court en banc can only be modified or reversed by
the court en banc, with all its 15 members voting.
The Third Division is composed of five justices.
On January 17, the high tribunal through the Third
Division acquitted Juvy Amarela and Junard Racho after
it found discrepancies in the circumstances of the
alleged rape in 2009 as narrated by the complainant in
her testimony.
It reversed and set aside the damning ruling of a Davao
City regional trial court in 2012, as well as the Court of
Appeals decision that upheld it in 2016.
Notably, the decision penned by Associate Justice
Samuel Martires said the tribunal can no longer abide
by the 58-year-old "women's honor" doctrine as it
cannot be "stuck to the Maria Clara stereotype a
demure and reserved Filipino woman."
“We should stay away from such a mindset and accept
the realities of a woman’s dynamic role in society today;
she who has over the years transformed into a strong
and confidently intelligent and beautiful person, willing
to fight for her rights,” it said.
It said this "misconception" "puts the accused at an
unfair advantage" and "creates a travesty of justice."
Women's group Gabriela has criticized this part of
Martires' decision, saying that it "flies in the face of
actual rise of reported and unreported rapes, sexual
harassment, bullying, trafficking, and other crimes
against women."
It also said that its reason for overturning the rape
conviction will "open the floodgates to many more
rapes, emboldening perpetrators who will abuse more
women with impunity, as they can now go on rampage
with the knowledge that courts will most likely dismiss
rape cases."
Rights group Amnesty International said that the
decision will make it more difficult for rape victims to
come forward. — BM, GMA News
SC says it did not abandon Maria Clara doctrine
By Bea Kirstein T. Manalaysay. Philippine Canadian
Inquirer on February 21, 2018
Supreme Court of the Philippines (PNA photo)
The High Court clarified through its spokesperson
Theodore Te that it has not “abandoned” the “Maria
Clara” doctrine.
In a tweet, the Supreme Court (SC) spokesman said on
February 21, “Only SC En Banc can abandon a doctrine
under Art. VIII, sec. 4(3). This case was decided by the
3rd Division.”
Te was citing the article that states “No doctrine or
principle of law laid down by the court in a decision
rendered en banc or in division may be modified or
reversed except by the court sitting en banc.”
This is after Gabriela Secretary General Joms Salvador
on February 20 slammed an SC decision acquitting two
alleged rapists. She said that this will “open floodgates
to many more rapes.”
In a 20-page decision by the SC Third Division, Juvy
Amarela and Junard Racho were acquitted from a rape
case.
“We have hinged on the impression that no young
Filipina of decent repute would publicly admit that she
was sexually abused, unless that is the truth, for it is her
natural instinct to protect her honor to protect her
honor. However, this misconception, particularly in this
day and age, not only puts the accused at an unfair
disadvantage, but creates a travesty of justice,” the
High Court held.
The decision added, “Today, we simply cannot be stuck
to the Maria Clara stereotype of a demure and reserved
Filipino woman. We should stay away from such
mindset and accept the realities of a woman’s dynamic
role in society today; she who has over the years
transformed into a strong and confidently intelligent
and beautiful person, willing to fight for her rights.”
Maria Clara is a character from Jose Rizal’s famous
novels “Noli Me Tangere” and “El Filibusterismo,”
portrayed as a reserved Filipina. The Maria Clara
doctrine also called “women’s honor” was entered into
jurisprudence in a rape case in 1960.
Dagatan in a radio interview admitted that mere
testimony of the rape victim is not enough because it
still needs evidence like doctor’s medical certificate. She
also said, rape victims must come out and assert for
their rights, as they are protected by the law, Violence
Against Women (VAW).
She also said, although the Supreme Court disregards
the Maria Clara Doctrine, Gabriela will still continue to
stand for the victims whose rights are being trampled,
calling for justice due to the crime done to her.
Actually, she said, although there are many women
organizations, but some people tend to look down at
them; and as subject of entertainment because of
patriarchal culture. As long as this system is not broken,
then men and other sectors of society will look at
women with low dignity, and subject for abuse.”
Dagatan likewise reported that their office receives five
to six cases per week regarding abuse to women. Most
of them are victims of abuse in the hacienda for two
years already but revealed only now.
She likewise emphasized that women have great role in
our society. They should be respected.
Disregarding the Maria Clara Doctrine is not respecting
the women, Dagatan asserted.*

GABRIELA REACTS VS SC JUNKING OF MA CLARA

DOCTRINE

Submitted by Edith Colmo on Thu, 02/22/2018 - 08:43

Clarissa Dagatan, chairperson of Gabriela-Negros

Occidental reacts on the declaration of Supreme Court
not to rely immediately on the accusation of a woman
as rape victim because no Filipino woman will admit
that she was raped to defend her dignity. The SC
reportedly disregarded the Maria Clara doctrine for this
reason.