Gabon Law Office

21/09/2024

R**e is r**e. Notwithstanding the victim's history or behavior before, during or after the r**e.

The Supreme Court has ruled that in cases of r**e committed by force, threat, or intimidation, it is not required to prove that the victim resisted.

It is enough that such force, threat, or intimidation existed and was strong enough to prevent the victims from asserting their will, determined from the victims’ perspective.

The Court clarified that previous Decisions stating that a woman cannot claim to be a r**e victim unless she resisted are contrary to current doctrine. These pronouncements also tend to reinforce misguided stereotypes that perpetuate gender bias and insensitivity. The right of women to autonomy and bodily integrity should be recognized and respected.

The belief that if a woman does not resist, then she consents to the r**e is unacceptable in any civilized society. It presumes that men are entitled to free access to a woman’s body at any given time and place.

“R**e is perhaps the only crime where the trial often focuses on the conduct of the victim instead of that of the accused. The need to prove lack of consent often becomes a question of the victim's behavior, her history, and her conduct before, during, and after the r**e as implying that some women can be ‘bad enough’ to be r**ed while others, because of their background, choices, and conduct, are simply lying when they claim that they were r**ed. It is time to strike down such uninformed and ignorant views,” the Court stressed.

Read the full press release: https://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/sc-proof-that-victim-resisted-not-required-in-r**e-cases/

Read the full text of the Decision: https://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/266706-people-of-the-philippines-vs-zzz/

25/11/2023

No excuses.

"Being poor or unemployed is not a license or a justification to act indecently or to engage in immoral conduct."

https://www.projectjurisprudence.com/2023/11/people-v-siton-sagarano-gr-no-169364.html

29/08/2023

Be careful mga Marites!⚠️

Truth is not a defense in the crime of libel.

In the case of Dr. Merle A. Alonzo vs. CA, People of the Philippines, et al., G.R. No. 110088 February 1, 1995, the Supreme Court held that any of the imputations covered by Article 353 is defamatory and, under the general rule laid down in Article 354, every defamatory imputation is presumed to be malicious, even if it be true; if no good intention and justifiable motive for making it is shown. There is malice when the author of the imputation is prompted by personal ill-will or spite and speaks not in response to duty but merely to injure the reputation of the person who claims to have been defamed. Truth then is not a defense, unless it is shown that the matter charged as libelous was made with good motives and for justifiable ends.

In fine, ingnon na lang nato na tinoud man kaha na inyong gipangkalat against another person/s, in the absence of good motives and for justifiable ends, one may be held liable for the crime of libel.

02/08/2023

The dirty finger🖕.

In the case of Villanueva vs. People of the Philippines, G.R. No. 160351 April 10, 2006, the Supreme Court affirmed the conviction of Noel Villanueva of simple slander by deed when he gave the complainant what is commonly known as "dirty finger" by poking his hand at complainant’s face with the middle finger extended and the rest of his fingers half-closed, an act tending to cause dishonor, discredit and contempt on the complainant.

Under Art. 359 of the Revised Penal Code, slander by deed is a crime against honor, which is committed by performing any act, which casts dishonor, discredit, or contempt upon another person.

So mao na nga dili jud magpataka ug dirty finger or in vernacular, "mamakyu".