Future Attorney Baket

05/13/2026

Barrista Solutions: What are your tips to all law students out there dreaming of passing or even topping the Bar exams?

Atty. Riguera: Practice and improve your legal writing and legal reasoning skills. Law students often focus wholly on the acquisition of theoretical knowledge, forgetting that good legal writing and legal reasoning are as essential to hurdling the bar examination.

05/13/2026

Justice Leonen on today's women: "strong and confidently intelligent and beautiful person, willing to fight for her rights." |

In People v. Amarela, this Court had occasion to correct a generalization of all women, which amounted to a stereotype, thus:
More often than not, where the alleged victim survives to tell her story of se*xual depredation, r*ape cases are solely decided based on the credibility of the testimony of the private complainant. In doing so, we have hinged on the impression that no young Filipina of decent repute would publicly admit that she has been s*exually abused, unless that is the truth, for it is her natural instinct 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 "women's honor" doctrine surfaced in our jurisprudence sometime in 1960. In the case of People v. Taño, the Court affirmed the conviction of three (3) armed robbers who took turns ra*ping a person named Herminigilda Domingo. The Court, speaking through Justice Alejo Labrador, said:
It is a well-known fact that women, especially Filipinos, would not admit that they have been abused unless that abuse had actually happened. This is due to their natural instinct to protect their honor. We cannot believe that the offended party would have positively stated that in*******se took place unless it did actually take place.

This opinion borders on the fallacy of non sequitor. And while the factual setting back then would have been appropriate to say it is natural for a woman to be reluctant in disclosing a se*xual assault[,] 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. (End of quote).

This Court then found the alleged victim's statement as less credible than the inferences from the other established evidence and proceeded to acquit the accused.

This Court in Amarela, however, did not go as far as denying the existence of patriarchal dominance in many social relationships. Courts must continue to be sensitive to the power relations that come clothed in gender roles. In many instances, it does take courage for girls or women to come forward and testify against the boys or men in their lives who, perhaps due to cultural roles, dominate them. Courts must continue to acknowledge that the dastardly illicit and lustful acts of men are often veiled in either the power of coercive threat or the inconvenience inherent in patriarchy as a culture.

[Here],¹ even if it were true that AAA was infatuated with the accused, it did not justify the indignity done to her. At the tender age of 12, adolescents will nonnally be misled by their hormones and mistake regard or adoration for love. The aggressive expression of infatuation from a 12-year-old girl is never an invitation for se*xual indignities. Certainly, it does not deserve the accused's ma*shing of her bre*asts or the inser*tion of his fin*ger into her vag*ina.

Consistent with our pronouncement in Amarela, AAA was no Maria Clara. Not being the fictitious and generalized demure girl, it does not make her testimony less credible especially when supported by the other pieces of evidence presented in this case..
..

"WHEREFORE, judgment is hereby rendered finding accused Pedro Perez GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt of violation of R.A. 7610, otherwise known as the "Special Protection of Children Against Child Abuse, Exploitation and Discrimination Act in relation to Article 336 of the Revised Penal Code, as amended, and is sentenced to suffer an indeterminate penalty of FOURTEEN (14) YEARS, EIGHT (8) MONTHS, and ONE (1) DAY OF RECLUSION TEMPORAL AS MINIMUM TO SEVENTEEN (17) YEARS and FOUR (4) MONTHS OF RECLUSION TEMPORAL AS MAXIMUM. ...

SO ORDERED"

Footnotes
1 Perez v. People of the Philippines, G.R. No. 201414, April 18, 2018, Third Division, Per LEONEN, J

05/12/2026

PROOF THAT THE VICTIM BECAME INSANE NOT REQUIRED IN PSYCHOLOGICAL VIOLENCE

The Supreme Court (SC), speaking through Associate Justice Amy Lazaro-Javier, ruled that proof of intent on the part of the husband in cases of psychological violence due to infidelity under Republic Act No. 9262 is not necessary for conviction, as it only requires proof of emotional anguish and mental suffering.

In a 17-page decision, the SC’s Second Division emphasized that the husband’s intention in choosing his mistress over his wife is immaterial, noting that his act of leaving the conjugal home and building a family with another woman was done consciously and deliberately.

It added that he cannot escape liability by invoking good intentions, such as remaining civil with his wife or providing financial support to their legitimate son, as the fact remains: he was unfaithful to his wife, and this caused her irreparable emotional and mental suffering.

The high court sentenced the accused to suffer the penalty of up to 8 years imprisonment and a fine of PHP100,000.

05/10/2026

05/10/2026

LEGAL EXPLAINER: Krimen Ba Ang Hindi Pagbibigay ng Sustento?

Marami ang nag-aakala na kapag ang isang asawa o ama ay hindi nakapagbigay ng sustento, automatic na Economic Abuse o Psychological Violence na ito sa ilalim ng VAWC Law (RA No. 9262).

Ang sagot ng Korte Suprema: HINDI PO.

Sa landmark case na Acharon vs. People (2021), nilinaw ng Supreme Court En Banc ang malaking pagkakaiba ng “walang kakayahang magbigay” at “sadyang pagkakait ng suporta.”

Ano ang mga mahahalagang aral sa kasong ito?

✅ ️1. Inability to Give Support is NOT Automatically a Crime

Kung ang isang tao ay nawalan ng trabaho, nagkasakit, nalugi, o talagang walang kakayahang pinansyal, hindi agad ibig sabihin na kriminal na siya sa ilalim ng VAWC Law. The law does not punish poverty, unemployment, or genuine financial incapacity. Hindi porke’t walang naibigay na sustento ay automatic na may criminal liability na agad.

✅️ 2. There Must Be Willful Denial or Intentional Refusal

Para maging criminal offense ang hindi pagbibigay ng sustento under VAWC, kailangang mapatunayan na:

• May kakayahan siyang magbigay ng suporta;
• Sinasadya niyang hindi magbigay; at
• Ang refusal ay ginagamit para kontrolin, pahirapan, o saktan emotionally ang babae o anak.

In short, hindi sapat ang simpleng “walang naibigay.” Kailangan may deliberate intent to abuse, manipulate, or inflict psychological suffering.

✅ ️3. Not Every Support Issue is a Criminal Case

Kung ang problema ay simpleng hindi nagbibigay ng sustento, pero walang proof ng intentional abuse or psychological violence, the proper remedy may be a Civil Case for Support before the Family Court, not necessarily a criminal case under VAWC.

⚠️ Bakit ito mahalaga?

The VAWC Law exists to protect women and children from real abuse and violence, hindi para gamiting “collection agency” o panakot sa mga taong wala talagang kakayanang pinansyal.