Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Reply To Rape and Abortion Counter-Affidavit
Reply To Rape and Abortion Counter-Affidavit
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:
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.
"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
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.