You are on page 1of 245

ANGELES UNIVERSITY FOUNDATION

COLLEGE OF CRIMINAL JUSTICE EDUCATION PAGE


1

CRIME VICTIMIZATION SURVEY IN ANGELES CITY

A Thesis Proposal Presented to

The Faculty of the College of Criminal Justice Education

Angeles University Foundation

Angeles City

In Partial Fulfillment

Of the Requirements for the Degree

Bachelor of Science in Criminology

By

MA. EULA LOBO TORRES

SAL-JOHN ARCEO DOMINGUEZ

WILFREDO JANIUS EVANS PAULO

SHARMAINE GUINTO PINEDA

ANGELUZ DIZON SOTTO

JHASLEE HANN ANAYAN SOTTO


ANGELES UNIVERSITY FOUNDATION
COLLEGE OF CRIMINAL JUSTICE EDUCATION PAGE
2

September 2015

TABLE OF CONTENTS

PAGE

TITLE PAGE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1

APPROVAL SHEET . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I

TABLE OF CONTENTS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2

ABSTRACT . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10

DEDICATION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12

LIST OF FIGURE/S . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13

CHAPTER I

THE PROBLEM

Background of the Study . . . . . . . . . . 14

Theoretical/ Conceptual Framework . . . . . 27

Statement of the Problem . . . . . . . . . 47

CHAPTER II

DESIGN AND METHODOLOGY


ANGELES UNIVERSITY FOUNDATION
COLLEGE OF CRIMINAL JUSTICE EDUCATION PAGE
3

Research Design . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 51

Population and Locale . . . . . . . . . . . 52

Sampling Method . . . . . . . . . . . . . 52

Data Gathering Tools . . . . . . . . . . . 56

Data Gathering Procedures . . . . . . . . 57

Treatment of Data . . . . . . . . . . . . 65

CHAPTER III

CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

Conclusions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 186

Recommendations . . . . . . . . . . . . . 187

REFERENCES

A. Journals . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 188

B. Internet Sources . . . . . . . . . . . 204

APPENDICES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 214

CURRICULUM VITAE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . II
ANGELES UNIVERSITY FOUNDATION
COLLEGE OF CRIMINAL JUSTICE EDUCATION PAGE
4

THESIS ABSTRACT

Title: CRIME VICTIMIZATION SURVEY IN ANGELES CITY

1.1 Total No. of Pages: 237

1.2 Text No. of Pages: 234

Researchers: MA. EULA LOBO TORRES

SAL-JOHN DOMINGUEZ

WILFREDO JANIUS EVANS PAULO

SHARMAINE GUINTO PINEDA

ANGELUZ DIZON SOTTO

JHASLEE HANN ANAYAN SOTTO

Type of Document: Thesis

Type of Publication: Unpublished

Accrediting Institution: Angeles University

Foundation

Funding Agency: None


ANGELES UNIVERSITY FOUNDATION
COLLEGE OF CRIMINAL JUSTICE EDUCATION PAGE
5

Keywords: Item Stolen, Breaking and Entering, Motor

Vehicle Theft, Area where crime was committed,

Instrument Used, Sexual Offense, Reportage to the

Police, Threat/Attack while being robbed, Identity

Theft, Vandalism, Hate Crimes, Unwanted

Contacts/Harassing Behavior, Number of Perpetrators,

Relationship with the Perpetrator, Onset duration and

Resistance, Other crimes and injuries, Response of

the Victim, Criminal Justice and Other Response,

Offenses, Place, and Time.

Abstract

Rationale/Background:

The rationale behind the study is to know the

type of crimes commonly committed in Angeles City, to

know how the citizens addresses to these types of

crimes, to know why the residents didnt tend to

report the victimization happened to them, and to

know the police-community relations in accordance to

victimization.

Summary
ANGELES UNIVERSITY FOUNDATION
COLLEGE OF CRIMINAL JUSTICE EDUCATION PAGE
6

In order for the objectives of this study to be

achieved, specific research problems are formulated.

The research problems are the following:

1. How may the profile of the respondents be

described in terms of:

a. Age

b. Gender

c. Civil Status

d. Family Type

e. Educational Attainment

f. Mobility

g. Business Operation

h. Employment?

2. How may the characteristics of victimization

in Angeles City be described in terms of:

a. Items Stolen
ANGELES UNIVERSITY FOUNDATION
COLLEGE OF CRIMINAL JUSTICE EDUCATION PAGE
7

b. Breaking and Entering

c. Motor vehicle theft

d. Area where crime was committed

e. Instrument used

f. Sexual Offense

g. Reportage to the police

h. Threat/Attack while being robbed

i. Identity theft

j. Vandalism

k. Hate Crime?

3. How may the details of victimization of the

residence of Angeles City be described in

terms of:

a. Unwanted contacts/Harassing behavior

b. Number of perpetrators
ANGELES UNIVERSITY FOUNDATION
COLLEGE OF CRIMINAL JUSTICE EDUCATION PAGE
8

c. Relationship with the perpetrator

d. Onset duration and resistance

e. Other crimes and injuries

f. Response of the victim

g. Criminal justice and other response?

4. How may the victimization rate of the

residence in Angeles City be described in

terms of:

a. Offenses

b. Place

c. Time?
ANGELES UNIVERSITY FOUNDATION
COLLEGE OF CRIMINAL JUSTICE EDUCATION PAGE
9

Conclusions

1. A huge number of residents of Angeles City were

not yet victimized of any crime, regardless of time,

day, and place of occurrence.

2. Hate crimes and Identity theft were not that

usually known in the Philippines specifically by the

residents of Angeles City.

3. Having no guts in reporting, being desperate to

forget the incident happened, and being lazy, are

some of the factors why the citizens were not

reporting victimization to the police.

4. The most frequent crime experienced by the

residents of Angeles City is Robbery.


ANGELES UNIVERSITY FOUNDATION
COLLEGE OF CRIMINAL JUSTICE EDUCATION PAGE
10

Recommendations
Based on the findings of this study, it is

recommended that:
1. To deploy additional police and/or other law

enforcement agencies on every areas or places where

the possible rate of victimization is high.


2. The police and/or other law enforcement agencies

if necessary prioritize the community relations so

that the citizens of a community would not be ashamed

to report the instances of any suspicious movement of

any unknown person/s or being victimized of any

crime.
3. The citizens if necessary report to the police

and/or other law enforcement agencies like Barangay

about the incidents happened to them like being

victimized of any crime regardless of its gravity,

and if it affects the safety of the community.


4. The citizens if necessary practice being alert in

any times, typically when they were alone walking on

a dark places or a street, or they were going home

late, and when they were on somewhere away from their

home.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
ANGELES UNIVERSITY FOUNDATION
COLLEGE OF CRIMINAL JUSTICE EDUCATION PAGE
11

First and foremost we would like to acknowledge

our Dean Dr. Lucia M. Hipolito, our professors Dr.

Alfie P. Sarmiento, Mr. Oliver G. Salta, and Mr. Ar J

Phoe Pangan for encouraging us to finish our study,

and in making us believe that our study is beneficial

to other people specially students of Bachelor of

Science in Criminology. It will never be materialize

without the help, encouragement, support, care,

sympathy, understanding, willingness, and enthusiasm

of our beloved professor, father, brother and also

our thesis professor Dr. Rhem Rick N. Corpuz.

It is very impossible for us to come up with an

awesome research paper without the support, love, and

encouragement of our classmates, the batch Magilas

and also we wanted to acknowledge the help of our

friends specifically Carmela Viray, John Mark

Baligod, Cliff Maravilla, Uldarico Gabornes, and

Angel Canono that provides our needs every time we

demanded them.
ANGELES UNIVERSITY FOUNDATION
COLLEGE OF CRIMINAL JUSTICE EDUCATION PAGE
12

Last but never be the least, we would like to

acknowledge our family specially our parents, that

provide us the necessary needs we demanded, not only

that but also the love, support, encouragement,

understanding, and believing to us that nothing is

impossible if we are working hard for something, and

that something is our research study. Even if they

were not helping actually, they are our stress

reliever and ready to be scolded if they were

disturbing sometimes, this is our siblings that

always believed in our skills and capabilities that

we can finish what we started.

The Researchers
ANGELES UNIVERSITY FOUNDATION
COLLEGE OF CRIMINAL JUSTICE EDUCATION PAGE
13

DEDICATION

We would like to dedicate this research study to our

Almighty God that gives us knowledge, strength, and

diligence to finish our study.

To our parents: Mr. and Mrs. Torres, Mr. and Mrs.

Dominguez, Mr. and Mrs. Pineda, Mr. and Mrs. Sotto

the parents of Angeluz, and Mr. and Mrs. Sotto the

parents of Jhaslee Hann.

To our siblings, relatives, friends, classmates, and

schoolmates, that has an unending support to us.

To our AUF professors, who mold us to become better

and responsible persons, and believed in our

knowledge and skills.

The Researchers
ANGELES UNIVERSITY FOUNDATION
COLLEGE OF CRIMINAL JUSTICE EDUCATION PAGE
14

LIST OF FIGURE/S

Figure No. Figure Title Page

1 Research Paradigm 50
ANGELES UNIVERSITY FOUNDATION
COLLEGE OF CRIMINAL JUSTICE EDUCATION PAGE
15

CHAPTER I
THE PROBLEM

Background of the Study

The National Crime Victimization Survey (NCVS)

series, previously called the National Crime Survey

(NCS), has been collecting data on personal and

household victimization since 1973. An ongoing survey

of a nationally representative sample of residential

addresses, the NCVS is the primary source of

information on the characteristics of criminal

victimization and on the number and types of crimes

not reported to law enforcement authorities

(National Archive of Criminal Justice Data).

There are lot of victims in the society that

prefer to keep quiet than to report the crime that

was happened to them, because of the time consuming

and other factors that will made them think twice if

they are going to report it or not.

Victimologist gathers and interprets data in

order to derive answers to the questions that

interest them. They want to find out how many people


ANGELES UNIVERSITY FOUNDATION
COLLEGE OF CRIMINAL JUSTICE EDUCATION PAGE
16

are harmed by criminals each year, how rapidly the

ranks of people who have suffered misfortunes are

growing as time goes by, and which groups are

targeted the most and the least often (Andrew

Karmen, 2012).

Statistics are meaningful numbers that reveal

important information. By collecting, computing, and

analyzing statistics, victimologists can discover

answers to the intriguing research questions that

they must tackle. Statistics can provide realistic

assessments of the threat posed to individuals by

criminal activity, it can reveal the costs and losses

imposed by criminal behavior, it can be used to

project a rough or ballpark figure of how many

people are likely to need assistance, statistics also

requires to evaluate the effectiveness of recovery

efforts and prevention strategies, finally, profiles

are statistical portraits that yield an impression of

what is usual about the average victim (Andrew

Karmen, 2012).

The Crime Clock dramatizes the fact that with

the passing of each and every second, minute, hour,


ANGELES UNIVERSITY FOUNDATION
COLLEGE OF CRIMINAL JUSTICE EDUCATION PAGE
17

and day, the toll keeps mounting. According to Andrew

Karmen, one crime index offense is committed every 3

seconds, one violent crime every 23 seconds, one

property crime every 3 seconds, one murder every 33

minutes, one forcible rape every 6 minutes, one

robbery every 78 seconds, one aggravated assault

every 37 seconds, one burglary every 15 seconds, one

larceny-theft every 5 seconds, and one motor vehicle

theft every 26 seconds (Andrew Karmen, 2012).

Victimization among the elderly (especially

elder abuse) is garnering greater interest as more of

the U.S. population is aging due to increased life

expectancies and the graying of the Baby Boomer

generation.6 Prominent national agencies such as the

National Institute on Aging, the National Institute

of Justice, and the National Academy of Sciences

recently have sponsored studies on elder abuse.

Researchers are investigating various forms of

victimization of the elderly as well as their

concerns about being victimized (e.g., Chu & Kraus,

2004; Shields, King & Fulks, 2004; Lachs, Bachman &

Williams, 2004).
ANGELES UNIVERSITY FOUNDATION
COLLEGE OF CRIMINAL JUSTICE EDUCATION PAGE
18

The NCVS identifies repeat victims through the

collection of separate incident reports for each

victimization reported during the interview period as

well as its classification of series victimizations.

Series victimizations are incidents that occurred six

or more times during the recall period (the preceding

6 months), are similar to each other in detail, and

whose details are indistinguishable to the respondent

(Planty, 2007) Recent news accounts suggest an

increase in the victimization of immigrants,

especially those perceived to be illegal immigrants

(Londono, 2007)

We cannot get a clear image of repeat victims

because victims, particularly repeat victims,

frequently choose to not report the crime to the

authorities. In 2000, for example, only half of all

known violent crime was reported to the police and a

substantial portion of this (approximately a

fifth of serious violent assaults) was reported by

bystanders, relatives, or acquaintances (Hart &

Rennison 2003). The statewide poll commissioned by

Californians for Safety and Justice was the first


ANGELES UNIVERSITY FOUNDATION
COLLEGE OF CRIMINAL JUSTICE EDUCATION PAGE
19

statewide breakdown including non-reported

victimizations (Californians for Safety and Justice

2013). This studied showed that those who did not

report were disinclined to inform the authorities

mostly because they struggled with the time and

effort required to report, especially if they were

doubtful that the police could or would do

anything (Californians for Safety and Justice

2013).

By triangulating information concerning victims

reporting practices with authoritative data on the

true occurrence and incidence of criminal

victimization, researchers have learned that the

police are more likely to be notified about certain

types of crime than other crimes. For example, we

know that the police are less likely to be notified

of crimes such as sexual assault and rape than they

are of crimes that do not carry the same social

stigma, such as robberies and aggravated assaults

(Fisher et al. 2003; Hart & Rennison 2003; Kilpatrick

et al. 1987). Among property crimes, we know that the

police are notified most often of crimes such as


ANGELES UNIVERSITY FOUNDATION
COLLEGE OF CRIMINAL JUSTICE EDUCATION PAGE
20

motor vehicle theft and least often for larceny (Rand

& Catalano 2007).

We also know that the police are more likely to

be notified of crimes by certain types of victim than

others; for example, older victims, women, African

Americans, and poor people may be more likely to

report certain crimes than their counterparts (Tjaden

& Thoennes 2000). Victims report a variety of reasons

justifying their decision not to report crimes to the

police. Data from 2000 reveal that approximately 20%

of victims of violent crimes felt that the offense

was a personal or private matter (Hart & Rennison

2003). This was followed by justifications including

a belief that the crime was not sufficiently

important (14%), or that there was an expectation

that the police would not take the offense seriously

(6%) (Earl Warren, 2014).

There is now acknowledgment within victimization

scholarship that not only do offenders and victims

share multiple attributes; often, they tend to be the

same people (Jennings et al. 2010). Moreover, while

recent research has begun to demonstrate a more


ANGELES UNIVERSITY FOUNDATION
COLLEGE OF CRIMINAL JUSTICE EDUCATION PAGE
21

sophisticated connection between individuals

identification as either offender or victim, it is

clear that there is a considerable relationship that

makes these roles coincide (Schreck et al. 2008). The

victim-offender overlap also has important

implications for reporting practices, although these

conclusions are somewhat unclear. While some have

found that victimization perpetrated by acquaintances

was related to lower levels of reporting (Block

1974), others have found no such relationship

(Bachman 1993), and others found a relationship to

higher levels of reporting (Felson et al. 1999).

Several studies suggest any type of childhood

maltreatment increases the risk of revictimization in

adulthood (Widom et al. 2008; Hill et al. 2010; Desai

et al. 2002; Ruback et al. 2013). This is true for

both men and women (Desai et al. 2002). Although any

type of maltreatment increases the risk of

revictimization, it has been found that the efficacy

of specific prevention models differ depending on the

type of maltreatment. For example, the results of one

study suggests that the effects of physical assault


ANGELES UNIVERSITY FOUNDATION
COLLEGE OF CRIMINAL JUSTICE EDUCATION PAGE
22

and sexual abuse are mediated by services that

provide greater emotional support and self-esteem,

but not social support (Hill et al. 2010).

Ultimately, a combination of intervention types is

suggested with this population. Combining

instrumental support, emotional support and

selfesteem building appears to be the most effective

prevention method thus far (Hill et al. 2010).

Several types of workshops aimed at educating

victims in safety and crime prevention have been

studied to evaluate their effectiveness in reducing

revictimization. The studies focused specifically on

female victims of sexual assault or domestic

violence. In each of these instances, no meaningful

reduction of revictimization was achieved

(Breitenbecher & Gidycz 1998; Davis et al. 2006).

Women who participated in relevant workshops did

not gain an awareness of high-risk situations and

behaviors. Several factors may have contributed to

this result. For example, many of the participants

faced more immediate challenges, such as finding

housing or health concerns. While others were still


ANGELES UNIVERSITY FOUNDATION
COLLEGE OF CRIMINAL JUSTICE EDUCATION PAGE
23

traumatized from past assaults and were not in a

position to deal with the issues covered in the

workshop (Davis et al. 2006).

Protective or restraining orders are one way the

legal system attempts to reduce revictimization.

Issued by the court, these orders are meant to

prevent revictimization from the victims previous

offender. These orders require the offender to stay

away from the victims person, home and/or work for a

specified period. Studies focused on protective

restraining orders show some positive results in

increasing victims self-esteem. However, there is no

conclusive evidence they reduce revictimization when

teamed with other legal sanctions against the

offender (Mears 2003).

Legal sanctions against offenders may include

mandated treatment such as anger management and

counselling. Study results regarding the efficacy in

preventing revictimization via these types of

sanctions are mixed (Mears 2003). Some results

regarding domestic violence abusers show a reduction

in battering and thus a reduction in revictimization.


ANGELES UNIVERSITY FOUNDATION
COLLEGE OF CRIMINAL JUSTICE EDUCATION PAGE
24

Other studies however, show an increase in battering

(Mears 2003). These inconsistencies are attributed to

the diversity of treatment settings and approaches.

However, legal sanctions teamed with other legal

interventions works best (Gondolf, 2002).

The main challenge of studying victim services

is that the effectiveness of each program is

difficult to measure. This challenge is due to

numerous variable factors regarding the victims

current psychological, emotional and practical

states (Davis et al. 2006). Factors such as the

types of crimes and trauma experienced, the

victims immediate concerns including issues with

health and housing, and what types of personal

issues are on-going (Davis et al. 2006; Ruback et

al. 2013). These issues can include dealing with

anxiety, depression or substance abuse stemming from

the effects of their victimization (Ruback et al.

2013). What is consistent however, is that each

study concludes that a combination of services is

likely to have the most positive effect on reduction

of revictimization (Earl Warren, 2014).


ANGELES UNIVERSITY FOUNDATION
COLLEGE OF CRIMINAL JUSTICE EDUCATION PAGE
25

Second, there is almost no current research on

revictimization of males. Most of the current

research focuses on women, leaving a sizable gap in

information regarding males and their likelihood to

become repeat victims (Cho & Wilke 2010; Washington

1999).

Thirdly, more information is needed regarding

the immediate challenges victims face. This

information may help services be more effective.

These concerns include housing, substance abuse, law

enforcement interactions, employment, and other

factors relating to the emotional, psychological and

practical wellbeing of the victim (Davis et al.

2006).

Lastly, there are very few studies specific to

California victims and their usage or ability to

access victim services. Throughout this literature

review there was a desire to find additional research

regarding the services available in California beyond

that completed by the Warren Institute (Warnken

2012).
ANGELES UNIVERSITY FOUNDATION
COLLEGE OF CRIMINAL JUSTICE EDUCATION PAGE
26

Importance of the Study

This study is focused mainly on determining who

or how many here in Angeles City was already been

victimized but still they chose to not report,

because some of them are thinking that the crime they

had been experienced is not that important. Other

than that, the study gives us a contribution on

different facts. First it will help us to be

conscious on our surroundings especially outdoors.

Second, this would help the police force to prevent

the situation to happen again. Third, it would also

help the victim to voice out their feelings to

assist them to solve their case by means of

reporting. It will give awareness to the public that

no matter how small or big the amount that was stolen

to them, how light or serious the situation happened

to them, justice must be rendered and also by means

of reporting the crime to the police it will help

them identify other offenders that didnt know yet.

And lastly this will contribute in the idea of the

public to see if the police forces really do their

job well.
ANGELES UNIVERSITY FOUNDATION
COLLEGE OF CRIMINAL JUSTICE EDUCATION PAGE
27

Benefit of the Study

This study will give benefit to the community

especially to those victims that are afraid or

doesnt have time to report. It will give benefit to

other law enforcement agencies to take their action

that some people in the community are not reporting

such situation and that the public will become aware

that not all crimes reported to the police are the

basis of identifying how many the crimes that has

been committed by perpetrator and how many citizen is

already victimized. It will help them to know that

there are things that must give time and importance.

This will help them to determine on what punishment

should fit the offense done to them and in able to

prevent such things from happening again. This study

will also help the future researchers that would have

the same interest on studying the victimizations

survey in Angeles City.

Scope of the Study

This study is specifically focused on those who

had been experience being the victim of any crime,

either male or female, children, teenager, adolescent


ANGELES UNIVERSITY FOUNDATION
COLLEGE OF CRIMINAL JUSTICE EDUCATION PAGE
28

or adult and even an elderly person that prefer to

hide and not to spoke up to the police and other law

enforcement agencies because of being afraid, lazy,

and any other reasons that lead them to just sit and

not to do actions about it. This study will not come

as far as to those who are not stated above, those

who didnt experience any crime and are not

victimized by others are excluded, and that the

result of the study is limited only in Angeles City

Pampanga, Philippines.

Theoretical Framework

This study is anchored and supported by the

following theories: Wedding cake model theory,

Lifestyle-exposure theory, and Routine Activity

Theory.

Wedding Cake Model Theory

It was developed by Samuel Walker, a scholar who

analyzed the judicial system. The theory divides the

proceedings in the criminal justice system into four

different categories: celebrated cases, serious

felonies, lesser felonies and misdemeanors. The


ANGELES UNIVERSITY FOUNDATION
COLLEGE OF CRIMINAL JUSTICE EDUCATION PAGE
29

theory allows for a closer analysis of these

different types of cases based on the manner in which

they are dealt with in the criminal justice system.

Celebrated Cases: The top layer of the Wedding

Cake Model Theory of Criminal Justice includes the

"celebrated cases." These types of cases garner a

great deal of media attention because the crimes are

unusual or because the defendants are celebrities or

high-ranking officials. The manner in which these

types of cases are undertaken is not typical of the

operation of the criminal justice system. Because

they are such high-profile cases, there are factors

that need to be taken into consideration that do not

exist in more typical criminal cases. These include

everything from cameras in the courtroom to crowd

control. By their very nature, examples of celebrated

cases are obvious: OJ Simpson, Michael Jackson,

Bernie Madoff and so forth.

Serious Felonies: The second layer of the

Wedding Cake Model Theory of Criminal Justice

includes "serious felonies." On this layer of the

"cake," the criminal justice system engages in its


ANGELES UNIVERSITY FOUNDATION
COLLEGE OF CRIMINAL JUSTICE EDUCATION PAGE
30

standard operating procedure. There are not the same

external factors impacting the system as there are in

celebrated cases. Serious felonies are cases

involving those types of crimes in which a defendant

is not likely to be released on bail. There is a

lesser chance that the defendant will enter into a

plea agreement before trial.

Lesser Felonies: On the third layer of the

Wedding Cake Model Theory of Criminal Justice are

lesser felonies. These types of cases tend to be non-

violent. Within this grouping of cases are certain

drug-related charges, financial crimes and the like.

A good portion of these cases end in plea agreements.

Misdemeanors: The final layer of the Wedding

Cake Model Theory of Criminal Justice involves

misdemeanor cases. These are the least-serious types

of crimes in the criminal justice system (excluding

traffic infractions). These types of cases include

petty or minor theft and disturbing the peace.

Misdemeanors represent the largest category of cases

in the criminal justice system. Many misdemeanor

cases are resolved with plea agreements.


ANGELES UNIVERSITY FOUNDATION
COLLEGE OF CRIMINAL JUSTICE EDUCATION PAGE
31

Significance: The Wedding Cake Model Theory of

Criminal Justice assists in better understanding the

operation of the criminal justice system. How these

cases fit into the overall justice system leads to a

clearer understanding of the mechanics of the

judiciary. Moreover, by making distinctions between

different types of cases particularly between

celebrated cases and other types of criminal

proceedings an observer better understands the

differences between the norm and the exceptions in

the criminal justice system (Siliconebutton, 2011).

Lifestyle-Exposure Theory

This work described the socio demographic

correlates of victimization based on an analysis of

victimization survey data. They noted that particular

subgroups of the U.S. population experienced greater

risk of victimization relative to other groups.

Specifically, men, younger adults, and African

Americans were at an increased risk in comparison

with women, older Americans, and Whites, for

instance. To account for such trends in victimization

risk, Hindelang, Gottfredson, and Garofalo suggested


ANGELES UNIVERSITY FOUNDATION
COLLEGE OF CRIMINAL JUSTICE EDUCATION PAGE
32

that victimization risk was a function of lifestyle.

In particular, men, younger adults, and African

Americans tended to have lifestylesincluding

patterns associated with work, school, chores,

leisure, etc. that exposed them to victimization

opportunities. The specific features of lifestyles

presumed to create more exposure to crime were said

to include time in public (especially at night), time

away from family or household members, and proximity

to and/or association with high-offending groups. In

short, these features of lifestyle shaped the

opportunity for individuals to become crime victims

(Wilcox, P., 2010).

Routine Activity Theory

Cohen and Felson examined temporal changes in

U.S. crime rates from 1947 to 1974. They focused in

particular on predatory crimes, which were defined as

illegal acts that involved the direct damaging or

taking of the person or property of another (p. 589).

They highlighted the dramatic increase in predatory

crime during that time period, with the most glaring

portion of the overall increase occurring during the


ANGELES UNIVERSITY FOUNDATION
COLLEGE OF CRIMINAL JUSTICE EDUCATION PAGE
33

decade of the 1960s. Cohen and Felson then offered a

routine activity explanation for this increase. As

a starting point for their theory, Cohen and Felson

defined the following three necessary ingredients for

crime: (1) a motivated offender, (2) a suitable

target, and (3) absence of capable guardianship. For

a predatory crime to occur, according to Cohen and

Felson, a willing, motivated offender must come into

contact with a victim or target that can be overtaken

in a time/space context (i.e., a time and a place)

that does not provide an adequate level of protection

in the form of persons or things that could intervene

between offender and victim. The convergence in time

and space of a motivated offender, a suitable target,

and absence of capable guardianship was said to

present an opportunity for crime. Cohen and Felson

suggested that the first ingredient for crime a

motivated offender was a given. Rather than

understanding crime as a function of variation in

offender motivation, Cohen and Felson indicated that

we could better understand crime in terms of

variation in the other two ingredients for crime. In


ANGELES UNIVERSITY FOUNDATION
COLLEGE OF CRIMINAL JUSTICE EDUCATION PAGE
34

particular, they suggested that crime had increased

so sharply between 1960 and 1970 because of the

corresponding, profound changes in societal levels of

suitable targets and capable guardianship. In short,

Cohen and Felson posited that, between 1960 and 1970,

Americans and their households became more suitable

and less capably guarded targets. They also suggested

that it was the changing routine, daily activities of

U.S. residents that created increased opportunity in

the form of increased target suitability and

diminished guardianship. Particularly opportunistic

activities, according to Cohen and Felson, were non

household activities. Major shifts in the labor

force participation of women occurring between 1960

and 1970 were thought to underlie much of the

increase in levels of non household activities.

Women's markedly increasing participation in the

labor force had substantial implications for the

public exposure of women and the lack of guardianship

provided to American households during the daytime.

For instance, Cohen and Felson presented data showing

that, in 1960, about 30% of households were


ANGELES UNIVERSITY FOUNDATION
COLLEGE OF CRIMINAL JUSTICE EDUCATION PAGE
35

unoccupied by someone 14 years or older between the

hours of 8 a.m. and 3 p.m. By 1971, that figure

exceeded 40%. As a result, more and more households

lacked capable guardianship, thus providing increased

opportunity for a crime such as burglary. At the same

time, women were spending more time outside the

house, commuting to and from work, resulting in

increased exposure to street predatory crime,

including robbery. Beyond work-related activities,

Cohen and Felson theorized that routine leisure

activities were also changing in the United States

between 1960 and 1970 among both men and women. With

an increasing percentage of U.S. households

consisting of two working adults, more disposable

income is available to be spent on leisure pursuits

outside the home (i.e., attending sporting events,

movies, restaurants, or vacation destinations) and on

the purchase of household durable goods (i.e.,

televisions, stereos, cars, bicycles). This

proliferation of public leisure activities and

household items (especially valuable but lightweight

items) also increased opportunities for crime. From


ANGELES UNIVERSITY FOUNDATION
COLLEGE OF CRIMINAL JUSTICE EDUCATION PAGE
36

the routine activities theoretical perspective

provided by Cohen and Felson, these leisure and 2

consumption patterns simply made it more likely that

motivated offenders would encounter suitable targets

in time/place contexts that lacked adequate

guardianship. Cohen and Felson tested their theory by

examining whether a household activity ratio was

related to the changing rates of predatory crime in

the United States. They measured the household

activity ratio as the proportion of U.S. households

that were either nonhusband-wife households or

households that could be classified as married,

husband-present, with a female labor-force

participant (1979, p. 600). They hypothesized that

increases in such households would be associated with

increases in U.S. predatory crime rates under the

assumption that such household structures served to

approximate routine activities that would increase

exposure to motivated offenders, increase target

suitability, and decrease guardianship. They found

impressive support for this hypothesis across five

different predatory crimes (Wilcox, P. 2010).


ANGELES UNIVERSITY FOUNDATION
COLLEGE OF CRIMINAL JUSTICE EDUCATION PAGE
37

Conceptual Framework

Age: The threat for cruel personal victimization

is especially high among people below the age of 25

(Sampson & Lauritsen 1994; van Kesteren & van Dijk

2012). Recent U.S. figures estimate the rate of

victimization for those aged between 18 and 24 to be

roughly 49 per 1,000, whereas the rate for those aged

25 and above is at most roughly 27 per 1,000 (Truman

& Planty 2012).

Gender: Men and women experience similar rates

of victimization overall, with a somewhat higher

representation of victimization among males (25.4 per

1,000) compared to females (19.8 per 1,000) (Truman &

Planty 2012). However, considerable gender

differences become evident when looking at specific

crime types (Jensen & Brownfield 1986).

Men are far more likely (to an order of roughly

twice to three times the risk) to be victims of

serious violent crimes such as homicide, or violent

crimes such as assault or robbery (Daigle 2012;

Kellerman & Mercy 1992). However, women are more


ANGELES UNIVERSITY FOUNDATION
COLLEGE OF CRIMINAL JUSTICE EDUCATION PAGE
38

likely to be victimized repeatedly, and to

experience non-stranger crime (Marley & Buila 2001).

The nature of victimization itself varies

between women and men. For example, in instances of

sexual assault especially, victimization for women

is more likely to lead to physical injury than

among men (Kilpatrick & Acierno 2003). Conversely,

assaultative victimization among men more typically

involves a weapon. Significantly, similar patterns

develop when looking at fear of victimization

(Schafer et al. 2006).

Civil status: Is one of the most salient

predictors of violent victimization risk among adult

men and women. Findings from numerous sources

indicate that victimization risk varies significantly

across marital status categories. Specifically,

research suggests that married individuals may have

lower victimization rates than unmarried persons, and

that victimization risk among the unmarried is highly

associated with cohabitation status (Robin Schaum).

Race: NCVS data repeatedly affirms the

observation that blacks are disproportionately


ANGELES UNIVERSITY FOUNDATION
COLLEGE OF CRIMINAL JUSTICE EDUCATION PAGE
39

victimized at higher rates than non-blacks (Truman &

Planty 2012). While some have noted that the

predictive value of race in assessing an individuals

likelihood of victimization diminishes somewhat once

it is controlled in a multivariate analysis (Rennison

& Planty 2003), scholars equivocate about whether

this is attributable to the confounding factors (such

as socioeconomic status) for which race might be

operating as a proxy. Moreover, multivariate analyses

that control for the influence of individual

variables reveal a strong intersectionality effect,

whereby the risk of victimization for an individual

occupying any one of the aforementioned at-risk

categories (young, male, or black) is significantly

lower than for individuals manifesting a combination

of these attributes (young, male and black) (Sampson

& Lauritsen 1994).

Family Type: The social scientific literature

features a remarkable collection of studies focusing

on the link between family characteristics and

juvenile offending (Farrington 2002; Kierkus & Baer

2002; Rebellon 2002; Rutter & Giller 1983). By


ANGELES UNIVERSITY FOUNDATION
COLLEGE OF CRIMINAL JUSTICE EDUCATION PAGE
40

comparison, a relatively small number of studies have

addressed the family context of adolescent

victimization (Schreck & Fisher 2004, 1022).

Educational Attainment: The research suggests

that lower achievement outcomes are consequences

rather than causes of victimization. It also shows

that victimization predicts the decreased levels of

academic achievement (Buhs, Ladd, & Herald, 2006).

Business Operation: It is easy to appreciate the

significant threat to the permanence of a small

business posed by just one incident of serious crime.

Even where a business is technically capable of

resuming regular operations after an attack, fear of

a recurrence may prompt the affected business to

curtail expansion plans, or to downsize its existing

operations. In extreme instances, business operations

may cease permanently (British Rail Consortium 1998).

Item Stolen: The items that most frequently

taken from juveniles are electronic and photo

gear and clothing and luggage presumably their

backpacks (David Finkelhor and Richard Ormrod, 2000).


ANGELES UNIVERSITY FOUNDATION
COLLEGE OF CRIMINAL JUSTICE EDUCATION PAGE
41

Breaking and Entering: For household

victimization including breaking and entering the

target of victimization is a household, while for

theft of personal property, it is an individual who

is victimized. The overall rate of self-reported

household victimization has remained stable since

2004 and that the rate of break and enter incident is

only 20% (Samuel Perreault & Shannon Brennan, 2009).

Motor Vehicle Theft: Motor vehicle theft

victimization has declined, even more slowly, since

1974. It peaked in 1991 then leveled of only to

decrease since 1995 (Tammy L. Anderson).

Reportage to the police: Australian data for the

2004 International Crime Victimization Survey which

found much higher rates of reportage of crime to

police: from 94 per cent of motor vehicle thefts to

37 per cent of assaults and threats (Johnson 2005:

xii).

Instrument used: The percentage of serious

violent victimizations involving a weapon and

reported to the police increased from 55% in 2010 to

67% in 2011. In 2011, a greater percentage of robbery


ANGELES UNIVERSITY FOUNDATION
COLLEGE OF CRIMINAL JUSTICE EDUCATION PAGE
42

(66%) and aggravated assault (67%) victimizations

were reported to the police, compared to simple

assault (43%) and rape or sexual assault (27%)

victimizations (Jennifer L. Truman, 2011).

Attack while being robbed: Robbery, or having

things taken by force or threat of force, was

uncommon, with only about 1 percent of students

reporting that they were victimized in this manner

(Mary Jo Nolin, et al).

Identity Theft: Four percent of survey

respondents who were identity theft victims reported

that their information was misused in this manner.

This suggests that almost 400,000 Americans were

victimized in this way in the year prior to the

survey (Mariam Aukerman et al).

Vandalism: Results from 2009 suggest that rates

of vandalism increase with household income. More

specifically, the rate of self-reported vandalism for

households with an annual income of $100,000 or more

was about one and a half times higher than households

whose annual income was under $20,000. The higher a

household's income, the more attractive its property


ANGELES UNIVERSITY FOUNDATION
COLLEGE OF CRIMINAL JUSTICE EDUCATION PAGE
43

and belongings may be to potential perpetrators

(Samuel Perreault and Shannon Brennan, 2009).

Hate Crime: Forty-one percent reported

experiencing a bias-related criminal victimization

since age 16, with another 9.5% reporting an

attempted bias crime against them. The distribution

of bias-related victimization and harassment

experiences in the sample resembled patterns reported

in other U.S. surveys with similar samples. Compared

to other respondents, bias-crime survivors manifested

higher levels of depression, anxiety, anger, and

symptoms of posttraumatic stress. Methodological and

substantive issues in empirical research on hate

crimes against lesbians and gay men are discussed

(Gregory M. Herek, et al).

Harassing behavior: The Stalking victims in the

United States also identified victims who experienced

the behaviors associated with stalking but neither

reported feeling fear as a result of such conduct nor

experienced actions that would cause a reasonable

person to feel fear. This report characterizes such


ANGELES UNIVERSITY FOUNDATION
COLLEGE OF CRIMINAL JUSTICE EDUCATION PAGE
44

individuals as harassment victims (Shannan Catalano,

2012).

Number of perpetrators: Among sexual violence

victims, the majority of both women and men reported

one perpetrator in their lifetime. Almost three

quarters of female rape victims (71.2%) reported

being raped by one perpetrator. For female rape

victims, 1 in 6 (16.4%) reported two perpetrators and

1 in 8 (12.4%) reported three or more perpetrators in

their lifetime. Almost half of female victims (45.8%)

of lifetime sexual violence other than rape reported

one perpetrator, approximately one-quarter (23.4%)

reported two perpetrators, and just under one-third

(30.8%) reported three or more perpetrators. For male

victims of rape and sexual violence other than rape,

the large majority (86.6% and 92.1%, respectively)

reported one perpetrator in their lifetime. Too few

male victims reported two or more perpetrators

(Michele C. Black et al., 2011).

Relationship with the perpetrator: Among victims

ages 18 to 29, two-thirds had a prior relationship

with the offender. The Bureau of Justice Statistics


ANGELES UNIVERSITY FOUNDATION
COLLEGE OF CRIMINAL JUSTICE EDUCATION PAGE
45

(BJS) reports that 6 in 10 rape or sexual assault

victims said that they were assaulted by an intimate

partner, relative, friend or acquaintance. A study of

sexual victimization of college women showed that 9

out of 10 victims knew the person who sexually

victimized them. One research project found that 34

percent of women surveyed were victims of sexual

coercion by a husband or intimate partner in their

lifetime (National Institute of Justice, 2010).

Onset duration and resistance: The early onset

of violence and abuse in a relationship carries on

for victims into adulthood, as adolescent victims

often find themselves in a pattern of abusive

relationships as adults (Silverman et al., 2001).

Other crimes and injuries: From July 1, 2010,

through June 30, 2011, there were 31 school-

associated violent deaths in elementary and secondary

schools in the United States. Of the 31 student,

staff, and nonstudent school-associated violent

deaths occurring between July 1, 2010, and June 30,


ANGELES UNIVERSITY FOUNDATION
COLLEGE OF CRIMINAL JUSTICE EDUCATION PAGE
46

2011, there were 25 homicides and 6 suicides

(National Center for Education Statistics).

Response of the victim: The physical injury

suffered by victims may be as apparent as cuts,

bruises, or broken arms and legs. However, it is not

uncommon for victims to be fatigued, unable to sleep,

or have increased or decreased appetites. Many

victims believe that the stress caused by

victimization endangers them to physical problems

later in life. Victims and survivors suffer

financially when their money or jewelry is taken,

when their property is damaged, when their medical

insurances does not cover all expenses, and when they

must pay funeral costs. The primary emotional

injuries of victimization cause both immediate and

long-term reactions to victims, their loved ones and,

sometimes, their friends (National Center for Victims

of Crime, 2012).

Criminal Justice and other response: It is

clearly in the best interest of the child and

criminal justice system to handle child victims and


ANGELES UNIVERSITY FOUNDATION
COLLEGE OF CRIMINAL JUSTICE EDUCATION PAGE
47

witnesses in the most effective and sensitive manner

possible (Janet Reno, et al).

Offense: About 30 to 40 percent of male and 16

to 32 percent of female youths have committed a

serious violent offense by age 17. Serious violent

youths are high-frequency offenders who are involved

in many less serious as well as serious offenses

(National Center for Biotechnology Information).

Place: About 1 in 3 violent crimes occurred in

or near the victims own home, During this time

period almost 1 in 5 violent crimes took place in

open areas such as yards, playgrounds, fields, on the

street or in other similar locations, Almost two

thirds of all property crimes took place in or near

the home of the household members, More than 1 in 10

property crimes occurred in parking lots or garages,

Purse snatchings and pocket pickings typically occur

away from home. The most common places of occurrence

were in commercial places such as restaurants, bars

and other commercial buildings (39.1%) and open areas

such as the street or on public transportation

(28.2%). About 10% of personal thefts occurred in or


ANGELES UNIVERSITY FOUNDATION
COLLEGE OF CRIMINAL JUSTICE EDUCATION PAGE
48

near the victims home or the home of a friend or

neighbor (Bureau of Justice Statistic, 2014).

Time: There is an average of 293,066 victims

(age 12 or older) of rape and sexual assault each

year. There are 525,600 minutes in a non-leap year.

That makes 31,536,000 seconds/year. So, 31,536,000

divided by 293,066 comes out to 1 sexual assault

every 107 seconds (Rape Abuse & Incest National

Network).

Statement of the Problem

This study aims to determine the rate of

victimization of residents of Angeles City, the

crimes they have been victimized with and factors

influential in their victimization.

This study specifically aims to determine the

following queries:

1. How may the profile of the respondents be

described in terms of:

a. Age
ANGELES UNIVERSITY FOUNDATION
COLLEGE OF CRIMINAL JUSTICE EDUCATION PAGE
49

b. Gender

c. Civil Status

d. Family Type

e. Educational Attainment

f. Mobility

g. Business Operation

h. Employment?

2. How may the characteristics of victimization

in Angeles City be described in terms of:

a. Items Stolen

b. Breaking and Entering

c. Motor vehicle theft

d. Area where crime was committed

e. Instrument used

f. Sexual Offense
ANGELES UNIVERSITY FOUNDATION
COLLEGE OF CRIMINAL JUSTICE EDUCATION PAGE
50

g. Reportage to the police

h. Threat/Attack while being robbed

i. Identity theft

j. Vandalism

k. Hate Crime?

3. How may the details of victimization of the

residence of Angeles City be described in terms

of:

a. Unwanted contacts/Harassing behavior

b. Number of perpetrators

c. Relationship with the perpetrator

d. Onset duration and resistance

e. Other crimes and injuries

f. Response of the victim

g. Criminal justice and other response?


ANGELES UNIVERSITY FOUNDATION
COLLEGE OF CRIMINAL JUSTICE EDUCATION PAGE
51

4. How may the victimization rate of the

residence in Angeles City be described in terms

of:
Input:

The profile of the


respondents a. Offenses
be
described in terms of
age, gender, civil
status, family type,
b. Place
educational
attainment, mobility,
business operation,
and employment.c. Time?
The characteristics of
victimization in
Angeles City be
described in terms of
items stolen, breaking
and entering, motor
vehicle theft, area
where crime was
committed, instrument Output:
used, sexual offense,
reportage to the
police, threat/attack Most often,
Research
while beingParadigm
robbed, the citizens
identity theft, of the sixteen
vandalism, and hate Process:
(16) Barangays
crime.
Float of are not
The details of Survey reporting
victimization of the
questionnaires their
residence of Angeles experiences of
City be described in at the 16
Barangays of being
terms of unwanted
contacts/harassing Angeles City. victimized of
behavior, number of any offenses
perpetrators, to the police
relationship with the or other law
perpetrator, onset enforcement
duration and
resistance, other agencies
crimes and injuries, because of
response of the being afraid,
victim, criminal lazy, and
justice and other of any other
response.
reasons that
The victimization rate lead them to
of the residence in just sit and
Angeles City be not to do
described in terms of actions about
offense, place and
time.
it
ANGELES UNIVERSITY FOUNDATION
COLLEGE OF CRIMINAL JUSTICE EDUCATION PAGE
52

CHAPTER II
DESIGN AND METHODOLOGY

This chapter will discuss about what research

method is going to be used in the study, how does the

selection of sample and collection of data be

gathered, and what data gathering tool shall be used

in this study.

Research Design and Methodology


ANGELES UNIVERSITY FOUNDATION
COLLEGE OF CRIMINAL JUSTICE EDUCATION PAGE
53

This study will use descriptive research as its

research design. According to Devin Kowalczyk (2015)

Descriptive research is a study designed to depict

the participants in an accurate way. More simply put,

descriptive research is all about describing people

who take part in the study. In this type of research

design three ways can be used in conducting this type

of research design these are through observation in

which respondents are being viewed and recorded; case

study wherein in depth study of individual is

conducted; and survey where the researchers can used

interview or questionnaires gathering data. In this

study, the type of descriptive research that is going

to be used is descriptive survey.

Since the study is going to use a descriptive

survey, questionnaire shall be the means of gathering

information among the respondents. This method will

aid the researchers in gathering the results and

responses.

Population and Locale of the Study


ANGELES UNIVERSITY FOUNDATION
COLLEGE OF CRIMINAL JUSTICE EDUCATION PAGE
54

Determining the number population and the milieu

of the study is important in order to have a reliable

and accurate result of the study being conducted.

Subsequently, the outcome gathered from the sample

will represent the entire population generally. In

this study, the residents living at the thirty-three

(33) Barangays of Angeles City shall be the target

population.

Sampling Method

A Probability sampling technique which is the

cluster sampling and simple random sampling shall be

used in this study.

There are about 355,180 people living at the

different barangays of Angeles City.

In order to acquire the total number of

population within each barangays, a document provided

by the National statistics office of Angeles City was

gathered and is shown at table 1.1.


ANGELES UNIVERSITY FOUNDATION
COLLEGE OF CRIMINAL JUSTICE EDUCATION PAGE
55

In order to get the number of respondents from

the target population, the researchers identify first

the total number of barangays in Angeles city which

is thirty-three (33) then divide it into two in order

to obtain the total quotient of sixteen (16) which

will represent the entire number of barangays in

Angeles City. To identify the sixteen (16) barangays

that will be put under study, the researchers use

simple random sampling without replacement by means

of fish bowl method or draw lots. After identifying

the sixteen (16) barangays through fish bowl method,

the sum of the population of each sixteen (16)

barangays was computed and the result is 186,309.

The researchers used raosoft in order to acquire

the desire sample size which is 384. The computation

is shown below.

Image 1

In determining the desired sample size, the

researchers used an electronic software namely


ANGELES UNIVERSITY FOUNDATION
COLLEGE OF CRIMINAL JUSTICE EDUCATION PAGE
56

Raosoft. The computation of Raosoft software is shown

on image 1.

In order to get the percentage of the sample

size of each barangays, the researchers divided the

population per barangay to the sum of the population

of sixteen (16) barangay which is 186,309 then

multiply it by 100. Then, in order to get the sample

size, the raosoft recommended sample size which is

384 is multiplied to the percentile of each barangay.

The computation is shown below.


ANGELES UNIVERSITY FOUNDATION
COLLEGE OF CRIMINAL JUSTICE EDUCATION PAGE
57

population per barangay


sample x 100
total population of 16 barangay

On the other hand, in order to compute the

sample size of each barangay, the raosoft recommended

sample size which is 384 is multiplied to the

percentile of the population. The computation is

shown below:

Raosoft recommend sample size X percentile of

the population = actual sample size

The researchers were able to determine the

sample size of 72 for Brgy. Balibago, 11 for Cuayan,

37 for Cutud, 23 Lourdes North West, 32 for Sto.

Domingo, 33 for Pandan, 52 for Malabanias, 25 for

Pulungbulu, 22 for Sapangbato, 10 for Lourdes Sur

East, 6 for Mining, 14 for Salapungan, 19 for Sta.

Teresita, 13 for Tabun, 4 for Virgen Delos Remedios,

and 11 for San Jose.

Table 1
Population of the Study
ANGELES UNIVERSITY FOUNDATION
COLLEGE OF CRIMINAL JUSTICE EDUCATION PAGE
58

Barangays Population Percentage Sample Size


1. Balibago 35,145 18.86% 72
2. Cuayan 5,281 2.8% 11
3. Cutud 17,992 9.6% 37
4. Lourdes North West 11,374 6.1% 23
5. Sto. Domingo 15,649 8.4% 32
6. Pandan 16,218 8.7% 33
7. Malabanias 25,070 13.46% 52
8. Pulungbulu 12,230 6.56% 25
9. Sapangbato 10,786 5.79% 22
10. Lourdes Sur Ease 5,068 5.79% 22
11. Mining 2,712 1.46% 6
12. Salapungan 6,641 3.56% 14
13. Sta. Teresita 8,993 4.83% 19
14. Tabun 6,164 3.31% 13
15. Virgen Delos Remedios 1,778 0.95% 4
16. San Jose 5,208 2.8% 11
Grand Total 186,309 384
Source: Base year National Statistics Office *2000-2010

Data Gathering Tool

The researchers will perform a self-administered

questionnaire to the 384 respondents that came from

the sixteen (16) barangays and that the respondents

will answer each questions without the intervention

of the researchers.

Data Gathering Procedure

The data on the study was determined using two

sampling techniques. First cluster sampling was used


ANGELES UNIVERSITY FOUNDATION
COLLEGE OF CRIMINAL JUSTICE EDUCATION PAGE
59

in determining the area where the study is going to

be conducted, the thirty three (33) Barangays of

Angeles City is where the target population will be

gathered. Second technique was simple random sampling

wherein out of thirty three (33) Barangays, sixteen

(16) of it was chosen using fish bowl method. Then

the percentage of each population per Barangay where

computed thru which the sample size per Barangay

where acquired by means of multiplying the percentile

of each population to the raosoft recommended sample

size which is 384.

The researchers went to the City Hall of Angeles

in order to acquire the document of total population

projection of each Barangay in Angeles City.

The questionnaires to be used for this evaluation

have been adapted from the National Crime

Victimization Survey (NCVS). The instruments have been

significantly shortened to reduce the length of the

interview and improve the response rate, while

maintaining the data most important to the objective

of evaluating crime victimization at two distinct


ANGELES UNIVERSITY FOUNDATION
COLLEGE OF CRIMINAL JUSTICE EDUCATION PAGE
60

points in time. There are three distinct

questionnaires and these are the Household-Level

Screening Questionnaire, the Person-Level Screening

Questionnaire, and the Incident Report.

Household-Level Screening Questionnaire

The Household-Level Screening Questionnaire is

used to identify specific types of crimes committed

involving the housing unit where an individual or

family lives. These crimes include breaking into a

persons home and stealing contents or money, damaging

contents, and/or physically injuring or threatening to

injure an occupant. Such crimes also include stealing

or damaging property left outside the housing unit,

theft of or damage to a car parked outside the

housing unit and belonging to a resident of the

household, theft of anything from any residents car

while parked outside the housing unit, and vandalism

to the outside of a residence. This questionnaire is

administered to only one adult resident of the

household; this person is asked to respond regarding

all crimes involving the household. The reference


ANGELES UNIVERSITY FOUNDATION
COLLEGE OF CRIMINAL JUSTICE EDUCATION PAGE
61

period for the recollection of household crimes is the

last 6 months. This is different from the NCVS and is

one of the reasons the data obtained using this

instrument and the methods recommended in this

workbook are not comparable to the NCVS data. This

questionnaire is also designed to be administered by

a trained interviewer who can assist the respondent

when he/she does not understand a question or when

other questions arise. This questionnaire is not

designed as a self-administered questionnaire.

Therefore, mailing the questionnaire to a household or

giving it to an adult household member to complete on

his/her own is a misuse of this instrument.

Person-Level Screening Questionnaire

The Person-Level Screening Questionnaire is used

to identify specific types of crime committed against

an individual. Crimes of interest include such things

as robbery, attacks, and threats of harm. This

questionnaire is administered to every resident of

each selected household who is at least 12 years old.

This provides for the most complete and accurate


ANGELES UNIVERSITY FOUNDATION
COLLEGE OF CRIMINAL JUSTICE EDUCATION PAGE
62

reporting of individual crime victimization. The

reference period for reporting these victimizations is

the last 6 months prior to the interview. This

questionnaire is also designed to be administered by a

trained interviewer who can assist the respondent when

he/she does not understand a question or when other

questions arise. This questionnaire is not designed as

a self-administered questionnaire and mailing it or

giving it to someone to complete on his/her own is a

misuse of this instrument.

Incident Report

The Incident Report is used to obtain specific

information about each crime reported in any of the

screening questionnaires. It is used to obtain

specifics about both household and personal crimes. A

separate Incident Report must be completed for every

victimization incident reported in the Household-Level

Screening Questionnaire and the Person-Level Screening

Questionnaire.

Supplementing the Questionnaires


ANGELES UNIVERSITY FOUNDATION
COLLEGE OF CRIMINAL JUSTICE EDUCATION PAGE
63

Your PHA may have some special data needs that

could be met through supplementing one or more of the

instruments provided for this crime victimization

program evaluation. This is certainly an acceptable

way for you to obtain extra data that are of

particular importance to your operations. We strongly

suggest that the additional administration time be

limited to 10 to 15 minutes to minimize its effect on

response to the survey. We also recommend that the

questions be pretested to ensure the questions are

appropriately worded, their intent is understood, the

information is something the respondent is able to

provide, and the time added to complete the

supplementary questions is no more than 15 minutes. If

the additional data pertain to an entire household,

then a supplement should be added to the Household-

Level Screening Questionnaire. If the additional data

pertain to an individual, then a supplement should be

added to the Person-Level Screening Questionnaire. If

the additional data pertain to each crime reported,

then a supplement should be added to the Incident

report.
ANGELES UNIVERSITY FOUNDATION
COLLEGE OF CRIMINAL JUSTICE EDUCATION PAGE
64

Questionnaire Conventions

The questionnaires provided contain some format

conventions that you need to understand and

either adhere to or change to format conventions with

which you are more familiar and comfortable before

printing production copies of the questionnaires. All

text printed in standard upper/lowercase and not

enclosed in parentheses is mandatory and must be

read to the respondent. This includes questions,

response categories, transition statements, and

probes. Some examples are:

Question: What is the year of your birth?

Response Categories: 1 1 or 2 times

2 3 or 4 times

3 5 or 10 times

4 more than 10 times

Transition Statements: Id like to ask some


questions about crime. Please think about just
ANGELES UNIVERSITY FOUNDATION
COLLEGE OF CRIMINAL JUSTICE EDUCATION PAGE
65

the last 6 months, between DATE and yesterday.

Probes: Anything else?

Text printed in ALL CAPITAL LETTERS is never read to


the respondent. This signifies instructions to the
interviewer, response categories not to be read to
the respondent, a question to the interviewer that
will direct him/her to the next point in the
questionnaire depending on the answer, or an indicator
of what the interviewer should fill in as part of the
question text. Some examples of these are:

Instruction: IF R IS LESS THAN 16 YEARS OLD,


SKIP TO P8. OTHERWISE, CONTINUE.

Response Categories: 1 YES

2 NO

Fill-in: You mentioned that (INCIDENT). I am


going to ask a few more questions about it.

Lowercase text contained in parentheses is optional


wording the interviewer may use to help clarify the
question depending on the situation. It is usually
included to clarify something in the question or to
set the question in the appropriate framework
ANGELES UNIVERSITY FOUNDATION
COLLEGE OF CRIMINAL JUSTICE EDUCATION PAGE
66

depending on responses to previous questions. Examples


are:

(Other than anything you have already told me


about) During the last 6 months was anything at
all stolen that was kept outside your home, or
happened to be left out, such as a bicycle, toys,
clothing, tools, or other things?

During the last 6 months, how many motor vehicles

(cars, trucks, vans, motorcycles) were owned by you or

anyone else who lives here?

Lowercase text contained in parentheses that is

separated by a slash (/) signifies the interviewer is

to select the more appropriate choice and use that in

the text of the question. An example is:

Did you have your (pocket picked/purse snatched)?

It is extremely important that interviewers understand

these conventions and adhere to them during

questionnaire administration.

Treatment of Data
ANGELES UNIVERSITY FOUNDATION
COLLEGE OF CRIMINAL JUSTICE EDUCATION PAGE
67

In this part of research the computation of data

is presented. The following are statistical tools was

used in the treatment and analysis of the collected

data to wit:

1. Percentage Method. The percentage is used to

determine the quantitative relation to the whole

response. The process of gathering the percentage was

dividing the frequency (sum of responses) by the

total number of responses. To compute for the

percentage (P)

Raw Score
Percentage=
Total Score
x 100

Where:

F = Frequency

N = Total number of respondents

100% = Constant Value

2. Weighted Mean. An average computed by giving


ANGELES UNIVERSITY FOUNDATION
COLLEGE OF CRIMINAL JUSTICE EDUCATION PAGE
68

different weights to some of the individual values.

If all the weights are equal, then the weighted

means generally behave in a similar approach to

arithmetic means, they do have a few counter

instinctive properties (Ybanez, 2004)

Where:

X is the repeating value

W is the number of occurrence of x (weight)

X is the weighted mean (Ybanez, 2004)

3. Mode. The mode is defined as the element that

appears most frequently in a given set of elements.

Mode can also be defined as the element with the

largest frequency in a given data set.


ANGELES UNIVERSITY FOUNDATION
COLLEGE OF CRIMINAL JUSTICE EDUCATION PAGE
69

Where:

L is the lower class limit of the

modal class

F1 is the frequency of the modal class

F0 is the frequency of the class before the modal

class in the frequency table

F2 is the frequency of the class after the modal

class in the frequency table

H is the class interval of the modal class

4. Ranking. In ordinal ranking, all items

receive distinct ordinal numbers, including items

that compare equal. The assignment of distinct

ordinal numbers to items that compare equal can be

done at random. Or arbitrarily but is generally

preferable to use a system that is arbitrary but

consistent, as this gives stable result if the

ranking is done multiple times.


ANGELES UNIVERSITY FOUNDATION
COLLEGE OF CRIMINAL JUSTICE EDUCATION PAGE
70

5. Skewness. A measure of the asymmetry of the

probability distribution of a real valued random

variable about its mean. The skewness value can be

positive or negative, or even undefined.

6. Variance. This measures how far a set of

number is spread out. (A variance of zero indicate

that all the value are identical). A nonzero variance

is always positive. A small variance indicates that

the data points tend to be very close to the mean

(Expected value) and hence to each other, while a

high variance that the date points are very spread

out from the mean and from each other.

Where:

X = the data point in a sample

N = data points

X = mean sample
ANGELES UNIVERSITY FOUNDATION
COLLEGE OF CRIMINAL JUSTICE EDUCATION PAGE
71

7. Standard deviation. The standard deviation is

the most widely applied measures of variability. When

observations had been obtained from every item or

sampling until in a population, the simple for the

standard deviation is (lowercase sigma). This is

parameter of the population. When it is calculated

from a sample it is symbolized by S. Standard

deviation of a distribution of scores is the square

root of the variance. Large standards deviations

suggest that scores do not cluster around the mean:

they are probable widely scattered. Similarly small

standards deviations suggest that there is very

little difference among scores. The formula is:

(Ybanez, 2004)

Where:

S = the standard deviation sample

= means sum of
ANGELES UNIVERSITY FOUNDATION
COLLEGE OF CRIMINAL JUSTICE EDUCATION PAGE
72

X = each value in the data set

X = mean of all values I the data set

Chapter III

PRESENTATION, ANALYSIS AND INTERPRETATION OF DATA


ANGELES UNIVERSITY FOUNDATION
COLLEGE OF CRIMINAL JUSTICE EDUCATION PAGE
73

This chapter presents the analysis and

interpretation of data that have been gathered

through survey questionnaire given to the 16

barangays of Angeles City.

Problem Number 1. Profile of the Respondents as to

age, gender, civil status, family type, educational

attainment, mobility, business operation, and

employment.

Table 2. Profile of Respondents according to Age.

Frequency Percent Cumulative


Percent

18-25 104 27.1 27.1


26-35 87 22.7 49.7
36-45 93 24.2 74.0
46-55 52 13.5 87.5
55 above 48 12.5 100.0
Total 384 100.0

Table 2 presents the profile of the respondents

according to age. It can be seen on the table that

there are 384 respondents where the majority are aged

18-25, the least of them come from those aged 55 and

above. Those aged 26- 35 are 87 in number, aged 36-


ANGELES UNIVERSITY FOUNDATION
COLLEGE OF CRIMINAL JUSTICE EDUCATION PAGE
74

45 are 93 in number, and aged 46- 55 are 52 in

number.

For the period 19952013, females ages 18 to 24

had the highest rate of rape and sexual assault

victimizations compared to females in all other age

groups. Within the 18 to 24 age group, victims could

be identified as students enrolled in a college,

university, trade school or vocational school or as

nonstudents (Sinozich & Langton 2014)

Based from the results of the survey conducted

by the researchers the majority of them are aged 18-

25 and, according to Sinozich & Langton (2014) the

highest rate of rape and sexual assault came from the

ages 18-25 which may show that within these ages are

the most often victimized of a crime.

Table 3. Profile of the respondent according to

gender

Frequency Percent Cumulative


Percent

Male 179 46.6 46.6


Female 205 53.4 100.0
Total 384 100.0
ANGELES UNIVERSITY FOUNDATION
COLLEGE OF CRIMINAL JUSTICE EDUCATION PAGE
75

Table 3 presents the profile of respondents

according to sex. It can be seen on the table that

there are 384 respondents were the majority are

females, the least of them come from male.

Gender differences between men and women are

examined in terms of relationships among four main

types of personal victimization: stalking, sexual

assault, family violence and intimate partner

violence (IPV). Findings indicate that females are

victimized more and are more fearful of crime than

males (Fox, et al. 2009).

It can be seen on the table that the majority of

respondents are females, and according to the study

of Fox, et al. 2009, the most victimized are females

which is based from their personal victimization.

Table 4. Profile of Respondents according to Civil

Status

Frequency Percent Cumulative


Percent
Single 209 54.4 54.4
Married 140 36.5 90.9
Separated 24 6.3 97.1
Common Law 1 .3 97.4
ANGELES UNIVERSITY FOUNDATION
COLLEGE OF CRIMINAL JUSTICE EDUCATION PAGE
76

Widow/Widower 10 2.6 100.0


Total 384 100.0

Table 4 presents the profile of respondents

according to civil status. It can be seen on the

table that there are 384 respondents were the

majority are single, the least of them come from

common law. Those married are 140 in number,

separated are 24 in number, and widow/widower are 10

in number.

Rates of violent victimization remained flat

from 2011 to 2012 for persons of all marital statuses

other than those who were widowed. Violent

victimization rates for persons who were widowed

increased from 3.8 per 1,000 in 2011 to 8.3 in 2012.

Married persons generally had the lowest rates of

violence compared to persons never married, divorced,

or separated, and this was also observed in 2012.

Married persons experienced 13.5 victimizations per

1,000 persons in 2012, compared to 37.0 for divorced,

40.7 for never married, and 83.1 for separated

persons (Truman, et al. 2013).


ANGELES UNIVERSITY FOUNDATION
COLLEGE OF CRIMINAL JUSTICE EDUCATION PAGE
77

The results from the survey conducted the

majority of the respondents were single regardless of

the crimes they were into, and according to Truman,

et al. 2013, persons who were widowed increased their

victimization rate unlike to married person which has

low rate of victimization.

Table 5. Profile of Respondents according to Family

Type

Frequency Percent Cumulative


Percent
254 66.1 66.1
Living Together

Solo Parent 71 18.5 84.6


Broken Family 59 15.4 100.0
Total 384 100.0

Table 5 presents the profile of respondents

according to family type. It can be seen on the table

that there are 384 respondents were the majority are

living together, the least of them come from solo

parent. Those broken family are 59 in number.

Family structure suggests that living in a

stepfamily may constitute an important risk factor


ANGELES UNIVERSITY FOUNDATION
COLLEGE OF CRIMINAL JUSTICE EDUCATION PAGE
78

for a number of outcomes of adolescent well-being. In

our data, the prevalence of violent victimization is

significantly higher among children from stepfamilies

than among those living in either single parent or

intact two-parent families (Savolainen 2007).

The researchers focused only on the type of

family a person has, but with regards to the study of

Savolainen 2007, it tackles that children living in a

stepfamilies may be more prevalence of violent

victimization.

Table 6. Profile of Respondents according to

Educational Attainment

Frequency Percent Cumulative


Percent
Elementary 19 4.9 4.9
High School 161 41.9 46.9
ANGELES UNIVERSITY FOUNDATION
COLLEGE OF CRIMINAL JUSTICE EDUCATION PAGE
79

Vocational School 62 16.1 63.0


College 138 35.9 99.0
None of the above 4 1.0 100.0
Total 384 100.0

Table 6 presents the profile of respondents

according to educational attainment. It can be seen

on the table that there are 384 respondents were the

majority are high school, the least of them come from

Vocational School. Those elementary are 19 in number,

high school are 161 in number, and college are 138 in

number.

National survey data shows individuals who

identify as transgender are more likely to experience

victimization in grades K-12 than their

heteronormative counterparts and are at greater risk

of experiencing problems with psychological

adjustment and lower levels of educational attainment

as adults (Paul, 2015).

Majority of the respondents are high school

graduate, and according to Paul 2015, transgender are

most likely experienced victimization during their K-

12 which may be the counterpart of high school in the


ANGELES UNIVERSITY FOUNDATION
COLLEGE OF CRIMINAL JUSTICE EDUCATION PAGE
80

Philippines, so there are a huge possibility that

those who are high school graduate are most likely to

become victimized.

Table 7. Profile of Respondents according to Mobility

Frequency Percent Cumulative


Percent
Student 93 24.2 24.2
Professional 70 18.2 42.4
Others 74 19.3 61.7
None 147 38.3 100.0
Total 384 100.0

Table 7 presents the profile of respondents

according to mobility. It can be seen on the table

that there are 384 respondents were the majority are

student, the least of them come from professional.

Those students are 93 in number, and others are 74 in

number.

According to Xie & McDowall 2014, victimization

would have a stronger effect on moving decisions for

Whites than for Blacks or Hispanics, and that

racial/ethnic residential segregation would moderate

the impact of victimization on mobility.


ANGELES UNIVERSITY FOUNDATION
COLLEGE OF CRIMINAL JUSTICE EDUCATION PAGE
81

The mobility describe by the researchers are in

contrast to the study of Xie & McDowall 2014, but in

respect to their study it indicates that

racial/ethnic residential segregation would moderate

the impact of victimization on mobility, but

according to the findings of the researchers,

majority of the respondents are students. If

necessary the citizen particularly the student must

be alert in all times, observing the surroundings

they were into, and protecting their valuables or

themselves from criminal offender, but with the aid

of police and other law enforcement agencies, they

may lessen the rate of victimization.

Table 8. Profile of Respondents according to Business

Operation
ANGELES UNIVERSITY FOUNDATION
COLLEGE OF CRIMINAL JUSTICE EDUCATION PAGE
82

Frequency Percent Cumulative


Percent
45 11.7 11.7
Private Business

Commercial Business 16 4.2 15.9


Home Business 78 20.3 36.2
None 195 50.8 87.0
Others 50 13.0 100.0
Total 384 100.0

Table 8 presents the profile of respondents

according to business operation. It can be seen on

the table that there are 384 respondents were the

majority are Home Business which indicates what kind

of business operation they were into, the least of

them are commercial business. Those private business

are 45 in number, and others are 50 in number.

According to Tulyakov 2004, organized crime

frequently targets businesses in order to penetrate

and overturn the existing social structure in

Ukraine. At the same time, because of instabilities

in the governmental structures, businessmen doubt the

efficacy of state officials and increasingly turn to

criminal groups for support and protection.


ANGELES UNIVERSITY FOUNDATION
COLLEGE OF CRIMINAL JUSTICE EDUCATION PAGE
83

According to the study of Tulyakov 2004,

organized crime targets businesses to overturn the

existing social structure in Ukraine because of the

instability of the Government of Ukraine, in general

businesses in a society is very essential in the

community and that those who has businesses are being

victimized by these organized crime groups or other

types of criminal offender but with the help and aid

of police and other law enforcement agencies, they

could lessen the possibility of being victimized of

any crime.

Table 9. Profile of Respondents according to

Employment

Frequency Percent Cumulative


Percent
Employed 97 25.3 25.3
Unemployed 102 26.6 51.8
Sometimes Employed 12 3.1 54.9
Others 44 11.5 66.4
None 129 33.6 100.0
Total 384 100.0
ANGELES UNIVERSITY FOUNDATION
COLLEGE OF CRIMINAL JUSTICE EDUCATION PAGE
84

that there are 384 respondents were the majority are

Unemployed which indicates the employment, the least

of them are sometimes employed. Those employed are 97

in number, and others are 44 in number.

According to the study of Harrell 2011, from

2005 through 2009, the average annual rate of violent

victimization in the workplace against employed

persons age 16 or older was about 5 violent crimes

per 1,000 persons. In comparison, the average annual

rate of non-workplace violence was about 16 violent

crimes per 1,000 employed persons ages 16 or older.

The average annual rate of violence against persons

not employed was about 17 violent crimes per 1,000

ages 16 or older. For each type of nonfatal violent

crime examined, rates of workplace violence were

lower than rates of non-workplace violence for

employed people and violence against persons not

employed.

Based from the findings of the researchers,

unfortunately the majority of the respondents are not

employed, but in accordance to the study of Harrell

2011, he indicates that the victimization in the


ANGELES UNIVERSITY FOUNDATION
COLLEGE OF CRIMINAL JUSTICE EDUCATION PAGE
85

workplace against employed persons was about 5

violent crimes per 1,000 persons and on a non-

workplace violence was about 16 violent crime per

1,000 employed persons, and to those not employed was

17 violent crimes per 1,000 ages 16 or older.

Victimization are influenced by the workplace of the

employed citizens, and luckily there are few who were

employed, if necessary they can protect their

workplace by checking the area, putting a

surveillance cameras to it, and being alert on the

surroundings, and also with the help and aid of the

police and other law enforcement agencies.

Problem number 2. Characteristics of victimization as

to item stolen, breaking and entering, motor vehicle

theft, area where crime was committed, instrument

used, sexual offense, reportage to the police,

threat/attack while being robbed, identity theft,

vandalism, and hate crime.

Table 10. Characteristic of victimization according

to Item stolen
ANGELES UNIVERSITY FOUNDATION
COLLEGE OF CRIMINAL JUSTICE EDUCATION PAGE
86

Frequency Percent Cumulative


Percent
71 18.5 18.5
Things that you carry,
like luggage, a
wallet, purse,
briefcase, book

Clothing, jewelry, or 79 20.6 39.1


cellphone
Bicycle or sports 12 3.1 42.2
equipment
Things in your home 21 5.5 47.7
like a TV, stereo, or
tools
Things outside your 1 .3 47.9
home such as a garden
hose or lawn furniture
Things belonging to 3 .8 48.7
children in the
household
Things from a vehicle, 2 .5 49.2
such as a package,
groceries, camera, or
CDs
None 195 50.8 100.0
Total 384 100.0
ANGELES UNIVERSITY FOUNDATION
COLLEGE OF CRIMINAL JUSTICE EDUCATION PAGE
87

Table 10 presents the characteristic of

victimization according to item stolen. It can be

seen on the table that there are 384 respondents

where the majority of the respondents who were

experienced being victimized are 20.6% and it is by

means of losing their clothing, jewelries, or

cellphone with, and the least of them are .3% and it

is by means of losing their garden hose or lawn

furniture. Those who answer Things that you carry,

like luggage, a wallet, purse, briefcase, book are 71

in number, Bicycle or sports equipment are 12 in

number, Things in your home like a TV, stereo, or


ANGELES UNIVERSITY FOUNDATION
COLLEGE OF CRIMINAL JUSTICE EDUCATION PAGE
88

tools are 21 in number, Things belonging to children

in the household are 3 in number, and Things from a

vehicle, such as a package, groceries, camera, or CDs

are 2 in number.

According to Clarke (1991), for each kind of

theft, specific items are consistently chosen by

thieves. In Residential burglaries, for example,

thieves are most likely to pick jewelry, videos,

cash, stereos and televisions. In shoplifting, the

items at risk depend on the store. Thus, book shops

in America are most likely to lose magazines and

cassette tapes, while groceries, supermarkets and

convenience stores are likely to lose cigarettes,

video tapes, beauty aids and non-prescription

medicines.

According to Philippine National Police Regional

Office 3 from January to June 2015, crime involving

theft are 364 in number with a percentage of .10%

from the total population of Angeles City which is

358,539

According to the study of Clarke 1991, item

stolen is based from the area where it is committed


ANGELES UNIVERSITY FOUNDATION
COLLEGE OF CRIMINAL JUSTICE EDUCATION PAGE
89

for example at residential burglaries the most common

item stolen are jewelry, video, cash, stereo, and

television, and it is the same with the findings of

the researchers where in the majority of the

respondents were victimized by means of losing their

clothing, jewelries, and cellphone, and according to

Philippine National Police Regional Office 3 crime

involving theft are 364 in number with a percentage

of .10%. It is very alarming that there are still

49.3% over 100% of the respondents are not reporting

victimization to the police, we cannot erase the fear

on their minds that they tend to not report, but the

police and other law enforcement agencies are task to

oversee the community, and it is their sole

responsibility to protect them, but it is still on

their discretionary on how they could handle the

situation.

Table 11. Characteristic of victimization according

to Breaking and Entering

Frequency Percent Cumulative


Percent
ANGELES UNIVERSITY FOUNDATION
COLLEGE OF CRIMINAL JUSTICE EDUCATION PAGE
90

Broken in or ATTEMPTED 74 19.3 19.3


to break into your home
by forcing a door or
window, pushing past
someone, jimmying a
lock
Illegally gotten in or 19 4.9 24.2
tried to get into a
garage, shed or storage
room
Illegally gotten in or 5 1.3 25.5
tried to get into a
hotel or motel room or
vacation home where you
were staying
None 286 74.5 100.0
Total 384 100.0

Table 11 presents the characteristic of

victimization according to breaking and entering. It

can be seen on the table that there are 384

respondents where the majority of the respondents who

were victimized of breaking and entering are 19.3%

and it is by means of broken in or attempting to

break into their home, by forcing a door or window,

pushing past someone, or jimmying a lock, the least

of them are by means of illegally gotten in or tried

to get into a hotel or motel room or vacation home

where they were staying. Those who answer illegally


ANGELES UNIVERSITY FOUNDATION
COLLEGE OF CRIMINAL JUSTICE EDUCATION PAGE
91

gotten in or tried to get into a garage, shed or

storage room are 19 in number.

It is also evident that some burglars were

involved in other forms of serious crime over the

course of their offending careers. About 8% reported

that they had been charged with homicide, 12% with

robbery, and 7% with assault at some point in their

past. On the other hand, over 54% reported that

burglary/breaking-and-entering was the most serious

crime that they had been charged with to date

(Blevins, et al. 2012).

According to Philippine National Police Regional

Officer 3 from January to June 2015 crime involving

robbery are 168 in number with a percentage of .05%

from the total population within Angeles City which

is 358,539.

The study of Blevins et al. 2012, shows that

burglars were involved in other forms of serious

crime which might be homicide, robbery, assault. And

that burglary or breaking and entering was the most

serious crime committed, it is the same with the

findings of the researchers where in the majority of


ANGELES UNIVERSITY FOUNDATION
COLLEGE OF CRIMINAL JUSTICE EDUCATION PAGE
92

the respondents who were victimized are by means of

broken in or attempting to break into their home by

forcing a door or window, pushing past someone, jimmying a

lock, and according to Philippine National Police Regional

Officer 3 crime involving robbery are 168 in number with a

percentage of .05% from the total population within

Angeles City, it is quite alarming that there are 19.3%

from the total number of the respondents that were not

reporting victimization to the police or other law

enforcement agencies, there are many factors to consider

why a person didnt tend to report victimization to the

police but it is the sole responsibility of the police to

know them, not by means of letting the victim report but

by means of visiting each household at least once every 6

months if necessary.

Table 12. Characteristic of victimization according

to Motor Vehicle Theft

Frequency Percent Cumulative


Percent
None 172 44.8 44.8
1 125 32.6 77.3
2 64 16.7 94.0
3 6 1.6 95.6
4 or more 17 4.4 100.0
Total 384 100.0
ANGELES UNIVERSITY FOUNDATION
COLLEGE OF CRIMINAL JUSTICE EDUCATION PAGE
93

Table 12 presents the characteristic of

victimization according to motor vehicle theft. It

can be seen on the table that there are 384

respondents were the majority that has a motor

vehicle are 32.6% which indicates that they had a

range of only 1 vehicle, the least of the respondents

that has a motor vehicle are 1.6% which indicates

that they had a range of 3 vehicles. Those who

answers (2) vehicles are 64 in number, and (4) or

more vehicle are 17 in number.

According to Truman et al. 2013, in the year

2012 a larger percentage of motor vehicle thefts

(79%) than burglaries (55%) and other thefts (26%)

were reported to police.

Based from the findings of the researchers

majority of the respondents that has motor vehicles

are 32.6% which indicates that the respondents has

only 1 vehicle, and according to the study of Truman

et al. 2013, there are a large percentage of motor

vehicle thefts with a 79% of incidents that were

reported to the police. The worry is somehow


ANGELES UNIVERSITY FOUNDATION
COLLEGE OF CRIMINAL JUSTICE EDUCATION PAGE
94

particular because a huge number of respondents have

motor vehicle so the reason of being victimized to

motor vehicle theft is high and if they will not

protect their property there is a possibility that

they will be victimized. But being alert in the

surroundings, protecting their motor vehicle very

well, and with the aid of police and other law

enforcement agencies, the crime might be lessen or if

possible would not be happen.

Table 13. Characteristic of victimization according

to Motor Vehicle Theft


ANGELES UNIVERSITY FOUNDATION
COLLEGE OF CRIMINAL JUSTICE EDUCATION PAGE
95

Frequency Percent Cumulative


Percent
22 5.7 5.7
Stolen or used without
permission

Did anyone steal any 14 3.6 9.4


parts such as tire,
car stereo, hubcap, or
battery
Did anyone steal any 6 1.6 10.9
gas form
Did anyone attempt to 4 1.0 12.0
steal any vehicle or
parts attached to it
None 338 88.0 100.0
Total 384 100.0
ANGELES UNIVERSITY FOUNDATION
COLLEGE OF CRIMINAL JUSTICE EDUCATION PAGE
96

Table 13 presents the characteristic of

victimization according to motor vehicle theft. It

can be seen on the table that there are 384

respondents were the majority were victimized of

motor vehicle theft is by means of stealing or used

without their permission are 5.7%, the least of the

respondents who were victimized of motor vehicle

theft is by means of stealing the vehicle or any

parts attached to it. Those who answer Did anyone steal

any parts such as tire, car stereo, hubcap, or battery are

14 in number, and Did anyone steal any gas form are 6 in

number.

Nationwide in 2010, there were an estimated

737,142 thefts of motor vehicles. The estimated rate

of motor vehicle thefts was 238.8 per 100,000

inhabitants, and nearly 73 percent (72.9) of all

motor vehicles reported stolen in 2010 were

automobiles (Crime in the United States).

According to Philippine National Police Regional

Officer 3 from January to June 2015 crime involving

carnapping are 89 in number with a percentage of .02%


ANGELES UNIVERSITY FOUNDATION
COLLEGE OF CRIMINAL JUSTICE EDUCATION PAGE
97

from the total population within Angeles City which

is 358,539.

The findings of Crime in the United States,

shows that motor vehicle theft particularly

automobiles are 73 percent of all motor vehicles

reported stolen in 2010, and it is the same to the

result of the findings of the researchers where in

the majority of the respondents were victimized of

motor vehicle theft, and according to Philippine

National Police Regional Office 3 crime involving

carnapping are 89 in number with the percentage of .

02% from the total population within Angeles City

which is 358,539. Based from the findings stated

above it indicates that the community is not that at

risk of carnapping, and the citizens were secured of

the said crime, but may still need additional

preventive measures from the police and other law

enforcement agencies to prevent the crime from

happening and to secure the safety of the citizens.

Table 14. Characteristic of victimization according to

Area where crime was committed


ANGELES UNIVERSITY FOUNDATION
COLLEGE OF CRIMINAL JUSTICE EDUCATION PAGE
98

Frequency Percent Cumulative


Percent

At home including the 30 7.8 7.8

porch, or yard

At or near a friend', 35 9.1 16.9


relative's, or neighbor's
home

At work or school 20 5.2 22.1

In places such as a 5 1.3 23.4


storage shed or laundry
room, a shopping mall,
restaurant, bank, or
airport

While riding in any 8 2.1 25.5


vehicle

On the street or in a 2 .5 26.0


parking lot

At such places as a 4 1.0 27.1


party, theater, gym,
picnic area, bowling
lanes, or while fishing
or hunting

None 280 72.9 100.0

Total 384 100.0

Table 14 presents the characteristic of

victimization according to area where crime was


ANGELES UNIVERSITY FOUNDATION
COLLEGE OF CRIMINAL JUSTICE EDUCATION PAGE
99

committed. It can be seen on the table that there are

384 respondents were the majority of the respondents

who were experienced being victimized happens usually

at or near a friend, relatives, or neighbors home

which are 35 in number with a percentage of 9.1%, the

least of the respondents that experienced being

victimized happens usually On the street or in a

parking lot which are 2 in number with a percentage

of .5%. Those who answer At home including the porch,

or yard are 30 in number, At work or school are 20 in

number, In places such as a storage shed or laundry

room, a shopping mall, restaurant, bank, or airport

are 5 in number, While riding in any vehicle are 8 in

number, At such places as a party, theater, gym,

picnic area, bowling lanes, or while fishing or

hunting are 4 in number.

According to Taylor (2006), Crime exists

everywhere in the United States in rural and urban

areas, in the East and West, and among all types of

people. This has led many government officials,

especially those in urban areas, to focus largely on

the reduction of crime among their respective


ANGELES UNIVERSITY FOUNDATION
COLLEGE OF CRIMINAL JUSTICE EDUCATION PAGE
100

constituencies and has led others to speculate on the

factors that influence the amount of crime and how

those factors can be controlled

The study of Taylor 2006, shows that the crime

may happens anywhere and according to the findings of

the researchers the crime usually happens at or near

a friend, relatives, or neighbors home. To secure the

safety of the citizens, the police or other law

enforcement agencies if necessary enforce the law

properly and there must be additional preventive

measures to prevent or to suppress the crime from

happening again or to not let the crime from

happening.

Table 15. Characteristic of victimization according

to Instrument Used

Frequency Percent Cumulative


Percent
a gun or knife 41 10.7 10.7
a baseball bat, frying 17 4.4 15.1
pan, scissors, or stick
a rock or bottle 7 1.8 16.9
other instruments that 34 8.9 25.8
can be used as a weapon
None 285 74.2 100.0
Total 384 100.0
ANGELES UNIVERSITY FOUNDATION
COLLEGE OF CRIMINAL JUSTICE EDUCATION PAGE
101

Table 15 presents the characteristic of

victimization according to instrument used. It can be

seen on the table that there are 384 respondents

where the majority of the instrument used by the

perpetrator to their victims based from the response

of the respondents are a gun or knife which is 41 in

number with a percentage of 10.7%, the least of them

used a rock or bottle which is 7 in number with a

percentage of 1.8%. Those who answer a baseball bat,

frying pan, scissors, or stick are 17 in number, and

other instruments that can be used as a weapon are 34

in number

According to Liem & Pridemore, male are most

likely to used firearms to kill their victims, while

females are most often to used cutting weapon to

commit homicide.

In relation to the results of the survey

conducted by the researchers, gun or knife are 41 in

number which indicates the number of respondents

saying that they were victimized using these

instruments, and to the study of Liem & Pridemore,


ANGELES UNIVERSITY FOUNDATION
COLLEGE OF CRIMINAL JUSTICE EDUCATION PAGE
102

which says males are most likely to used firearms to

kill their victims while females prefer to used

cutting instrument to commit homicide, it is very

alarming to the public that the usual instrument used

by the perpetrators are gun or knife which when

penetrate to any person may cause a fatal injury, but

with the deployment of a lot more police officers or

patrol men, or with the help of other law enforcement

agencies it can minimize or lessen or if possible to

prevent the used of gun or knife in committing a

crime or prevent any crime from happening.

Table 16. Characteristic of victimization according

to Sexual Offense

Frequency Percent Cumulative


Percent
Someone you did not 18 4.7 4.7
know before
A casual acquaintance 36 9.4 14.1
Someone you know well 6 1.6 15.6
None 324 84.4 100.0
Total 384 100.0
ANGELES UNIVERSITY FOUNDATION
COLLEGE OF CRIMINAL JUSTICE EDUCATION PAGE
103

Table 16 presents the characteristic of

victimization according to sexual offense. It can be

seen on the table that there are 384 respondents

where the majority of the respondents that were

victimized of sexual offense is done by a casual

acquaintance which are 36 in number with a percentage

of 9.4%, the least of the respondents that were

victimized of sexual offense is done by someone they

know well which are 6 in number with a percentage of

1.6%. Those who answer someone you did not know

before are 18 in number.

Approximately 4/5 of rapes were committed by

someone known to the victim. 82% of sexual assaults

were perpetrated by a non-stranger. 47% of rapists

are a friend or acquaintance. 25% are an intimate. 5%

are a relative (Rape, Abuse & Incest National

Network).

According to Philippine National Police Regional

Officer 3 from January to June 2015 crime involving


ANGELES UNIVERSITY FOUNDATION
COLLEGE OF CRIMINAL JUSTICE EDUCATION PAGE
104

rape are 39 in number with a percentage of .01% from

the total population within Angeles City which is

358, 539.

There are huge number of respondents that were

victimized of sexual offense by someone they didnt

know, by a casual acquaintance, or by someone they

know well, and in relation to the study of RAINN,

which says that 4/5 of rapes were committed by

someone they know well, 82% of sexual offense were

committed by a non-stranger, 47% were committed by a

friend or acquaintance, 25% are intimate and 5% are

committed by a relative. It is very alarming that

from 384 respondents there are 60 that were

victimized of sexual offense that tend to not report

to the police, those who reported victimization from

the police within the range of 6 months are only 39

in number it is quite far from the findings of the

researchers which are 60 in number. Sexual offense is

very alarming to the community specifically in

Angeles City, it is the responsibility of the

individual to protect themselves but with the help of

the police and other law enforcement agencies the


ANGELES UNIVERSITY FOUNDATION
COLLEGE OF CRIMINAL JUSTICE EDUCATION PAGE
105

crime might be lessen or if possible can prevent from

happening.

Table 17. Characteristic of victimization according

to Reportage to the police

Frequency Percent Cumulative Percent

Yes 40 10.4 10.4


No 344 89.6 100.0
Total 384 100.0
Table 17 presents the characteristic of victimization

according to reportage to the police. It can be seen on

the table that there are 384 respondents were the majority

answers no which indicates that they were not reporting

victimization to the police, the least of them answers yes

which indicates that they were reporting victimization to

the police.

The majority of sexual assault are not reported

to the police (an average of 68% of assaults in the

last five years were not reported). People reporting

to the police may differ on what kind of person they

are, it is noted that these factors must be

determined: victims and crimes, the role of emotions


ANGELES UNIVERSITY FOUNDATION
COLLEGE OF CRIMINAL JUSTICE EDUCATION PAGE
106

in reporting to the police, satisfaction with the

police, and take-away lessons (Posick & Singleton,

2014).

According to Philippine National Police Regional

Officer 3 from January to June 2015 there are 618 in

number with a percentage of .17% from the total

population within Angeles City who were reporting

victimization to the police.

It is very alarming that the number of

respondents saying that they were not reporting to

the police are huge than those who are reporting to

the police, and in relation to the study of Posick &

Singleton that there are factors that must be

consider in reporting offenses to the police. There

are many factors that may affect the reportage of the

citizen, it might because of fear, laziness, wanted

to forget the bad things happened to them, or any

other reason that made them decide not to report any

incidents of victimization to the police, but

according to Philippine National Police Regional

Office 3 from January to June 2015 there are 618 in

number of victims reporting to the police. The


ANGELES UNIVERSITY FOUNDATION
COLLEGE OF CRIMINAL JUSTICE EDUCATION PAGE
107

citizens must always report to the police whenever

they were victimized regardless of the offense they

were into, so that the crime will be properly

identified and to prevent it from happening again,

and if cannot be possible, might be lessen or

suppress the numbers of being victimized.

Frequency Percent Cumulative


Percent
With any weapon, for 19 4.9 4.9
instance, a gun or
knife
With anything like a 41 10.7 15.6
baseball bat, frying
pan, scissors, or
stick
By something thrown, 4 1.0 16.7
such as a rock or
bottle
Include any grabbing, 9 2.3 19.0
punching, or choking
Any rape, attempted 1 .3 19.3
rape or other type of
sexual attack
Any attack or threat 3 .8 20.1
or use of force by
anyone at all? Please
mention it even if
you are not certain
it was a crime
None 307 79.9 100.0
Total 384 100.0
ANGELES UNIVERSITY FOUNDATION
COLLEGE OF CRIMINAL JUSTICE EDUCATION PAGE
108

Table 18. Characteristic of victimization according to

Threat/Attack while being robbed

Table 18 presents the characteristic of

victimization according to threat/attack while being

robbed. It can be seen on the table that there are

384 respondents where the majority of the respondents

that were experienced victimized of attack while

being robbed by the perpetrator is by means of using

a baseball bat, frying pan, scissors, or stick, the

least of them experienced attack while being robbed

by means of any rape or attempted rape or other types

of sexual attacks done by the perpetrator. Those who

answer With any weapon, for instance, a gun or knife

are 19 in number, By something thrown, such as a rock

or bottle are 4 in number, Include any grabbing,

punching, or choking are 9 in number, Any attack or

threat or use of force by anyone at all? Please

mention it even if you are not certain it was a crime

are 3 in number.

Of considerable interest is the relationship

between injury prevalence and weapon type. Although


ANGELES UNIVERSITY FOUNDATION
COLLEGE OF CRIMINAL JUSTICE EDUCATION PAGE
109

there is a direct link between weapon lethality and

the likelihood of death in robbery, a number of

studies have found that the likelihood of victim

injury is related inversely to the lethality of the

weapon. This surprising pattern in victim injury can

be attributed to the weapons related difference in

robbery technique. Non-armed robberies and robberies

with clubs, known as "muggings" or "yokings", usually

are initiated by an attack. Robberies with more

lethal weapons, known as "hold-ups," usually are

initiated with the threat and/or the display of the

weapon. This choice of technique in both cases

reflects the robber's objective of overcoming the

victim's willingness to part with his or her

valuables. The mere threat of injury is sufficient if

made credible by the display of a gun or a knife

(Cook 1987).

It is somehow alarming how the perpetrator

commits the crime by means of attack or threat, there

are 77 in number or 20.1% of the respondents

experience victimized of attack or threat while being

robbed and according to Cook 1987, the display of


ANGELES UNIVERSITY FOUNDATION
COLLEGE OF CRIMINAL JUSTICE EDUCATION PAGE
110

weapon is usually done on a hold-up to overcome the

victim willingness to part with his or her valuables.

But it is considerable that there are few numbers of

respondents that were victimized, so the police or

other law enforcement agencies must interfere in a

manner that they could help the citizens to feel

secured with the community with the used of any

preventive measures like patrolling at a dark places

or on a an inhibited places.

Table 19. Characteristic of victimization according

to identity theft

Frequency Percent Cumulative


Percent
Yes 13 3.4 3.4
No 196 51.0 54.4
Don't Know 175 45.6 100.0
Total 384 100.0
Table 19 presents the characteristic of victimization

according to identity theft. It can be seen on the table

that there are 384 respondents were the majority

answers no which indicates that they werent been

victimized of identity theft by means of using any

existing credit cards number without permission to place


ANGELES UNIVERSITY FOUNDATION
COLLEGE OF CRIMINAL JUSTICE EDUCATION PAGE
111

charges on an account, the least of them answers yes

which indicates that they were victimized of

identity theft by means of using any existing

credit cards number. Those who answered dont

know are 175 in number.

Twenty percent of victims of existing account

misuse discovered the incident because of fraudulent

charges on their account (Harrell & Langton 2013).

It is good to know that in Angeles City,

identity theft is not that alarming compared to other

countries in the world, the majority of the

respondents were not yet been victimized of these

type of crime, and according to Harrell & Langton

2013, there are only twenty percent of victims

experienced the situation, but in order to prevent

the situation from happening the card holders must

always protect their identity and not to associate

with other unknown personalities. But still there are

a very minimal numbers of respondents that were

victimized of this type of identity theft but with

the help of police and other law enforcement agencies


ANGELES UNIVERSITY FOUNDATION
COLLEGE OF CRIMINAL JUSTICE EDUCATION PAGE
112

to the crime might be suppress or if possible prevent

from happening again.

Table 20. Characteristic of victimization according

to Frequency Percent Cumulative


Percent
Yes 17 4.4 4.4
No 193 50.3 54.7
Don't Know 174 45.3 100.0
Total 384 100.0
Identity Theft

Table 20 presents the characteristic of

victimization according to identity theft. It can be

seen on the table that there are 384 respondents

were the majority answers no which indicates that


ANGELES UNIVERSITY FOUNDATION
COLLEGE OF CRIMINAL JUSTICE EDUCATION PAGE
113

they werent victimized of identity theft by means of

using wireless telephone account, bank account, and

debit/check cards, the least of them answers yes

which indicates that they were victimized of identity

theft by means of wireless telephone account, bank

account and debit/check cards. Those who answered

dont know are 174 in number.

Forty-seven percent (132) experienced the

fraudulent use or attempted use of another existing

account, such as a bank account, debit, ATM card, or

wireless telephone account (Thelin & Sapp, 2011).

It is fortunate that in Angeles City they have

lesser number of identity theft victims, unlike to

Indiana wherein there are 47% or 132 respondents

experienced being victimized by these crime, but we

cannot remove the possibility of being victim of the

arising number of identity theft, but with the aid of

the police and other law enforcement agencies it can

help to suppress or if possible prevent the crime

from happening and of course with utmost caution of

any card holders and or users.


ANGELES UNIVERSITY FOUNDATION
COLLEGE OF CRIMINAL JUSTICE EDUCATION PAGE
114

Table 21. Characteristic of victimization according

to Identity theft

Frequency Percent Cumulative


Percent
Yes 13 3.4 3.4
No 197 51.3 54.7
Don't Know 174 45.3 100.0
Total 384 100.0

Table 21 presents the characteristic of

victimization according to identity theft. It can be

seen on the table that there are 384 respondents

were the majority answered no which indicates that

they werent victimized of identity theft by means of

using personal information without permission to

obtain new credit cards or loans, run up debts,

open other accounts, or otherwise commit theft,

fraud, or some other crime, the least of them

answered yes which indicate that they were

victimized of identity theft by mean using personal

information without permission to obtain new

credit cards or loans, run up debts, open other


ANGELES UNIVERSITY FOUNDATION
COLLEGE OF CRIMINAL JUSTICE EDUCATION PAGE
115

accounts, or otherwise commit theft, fraud, or

some other crime. Those who answered dont know are

174 in number.

With enough identifying information about an

individual, a criminal can take over that

individual's identity to conduct a wide range of

crimes: for example, false applications for loans and

credit cards, fraudulent withdrawals from bank

accounts, fraudulent use of telephone calling cards,

or obtaining other goods or privileges which the

criminal might be denied if he were to use his real

name (Weissmann et al. 2015).

The Philippines particularly in Angeles City

were lucky that identity theft is not that a big

problem in the community, based on the findings of

the researchers, a huge number of respondents says

that they were not been victimized of identity theft,

while on the other countries it is common, and

according to Weissmann et. Al, 2015 the criminals

will gather enough information to commit identity

theft, and they will used to for application for

loans, and credit cards fraudulent withdrawals from


ANGELES UNIVERSITY FOUNDATION
COLLEGE OF CRIMINAL JUSTICE EDUCATION PAGE
116

bank accounts, fraudulent use of telephone calling

cards, or obtaining other goods or privileges. But

still there are minimal numbers of respondents being

victimized of identity theft but can still be

suppress with the help of the card holder themselves

and also by the police and other law enforcement

agencies.

Table 22. Characteristic of victimization according

to Identity theft

Frequency Percent Cumulative


Percent
One 10 2.6 2.6
More than one 5 1.3 3.9
Don't Know 369 96.1 100.0
Total 384 100.0

Table 22 presents the characteristic of

victimization according to identity theft. It can be

seen on the table that there are 384 respondents were

the majority answers dont know which indicates


ANGELES UNIVERSITY FOUNDATION
COLLEGE OF CRIMINAL JUSTICE EDUCATION PAGE
117

that they werent been victimized and they didnt

know the episode of identity theft, the least of

them answers more than one which indicates that they

were victimized of one episode or more than one

episode of identity theft. Those who answered one are

10 in number.

From 2005 to 2007, the number of households that

experienced credit card theft increased by 31% and

the number that experienced multiple types during the

same episode increased by 37% (Langton & Baum, 2010).

According to Langton & Baum, 2010 those who

experienced multiple types of identity theft during

the same episode increased by 37% fortunately in the

Philippines particularly in Angeles City episode of

identity theft is not that common, the majority of

the respondents were not yet been victimized and

didnt know the episode of identity theft, while on

the other countries the episode of identity theft

increases.

Table 23. Characteristic of victimization according

to Identity Theft
ANGELES UNIVERSITY FOUNDATION
COLLEGE OF CRIMINAL JUSTICE EDUCATION PAGE
118

Frequency Percent Cumulative


Percent
Separately 8 2.1 2.1
At the same time 4 1.0 3.1
Don't Know 372 96.9 100.0
Total 384 100.0

Table 23 presents the characteristic of

victimization according to identity theft. It can be

seen on the table that there are 384 respondents were

the majority answers dont know which indicates that

they didnt know if the episodes of identity theft

occur separately or at the same time, the least of

them answered at the same time which indicates that

the episodes of identity theft occur at the same

time. Those who answered separately are 8 in number.

According to Baum 2005, no differences in

identity theft victimization were detected by race.

The proportion of households victimized by identity

theft was similar for whites, blacks, and other


ANGELES UNIVERSITY FOUNDATION
COLLEGE OF CRIMINAL JUSTICE EDUCATION PAGE
119

racial groups. Hispanic households experienced fewer

episodes of identity theft than non-Hispanic

households.

Based from the findings of the researchers, the

majority of the respondents were not yet been

victimized of identity theft and any type of its

forms, and according to the study of Baum 2005,

Hispanic households experienced fewer episodes of

identity theft than non-Hispanic households. There

are still a few number of respondents who were

already victimized of identity theft, and in order to

maintain the peace and order to the community the

police and other law enforcement agencies must if

necessary be in joint forces to suppress or if

possible to prevent the crime from happening.

Table 24. Characteristic of victimization according

to Identity theft

Frequency Percent Cumulative


Percent
7 1.8 1.8
Existing credit cards

Personal information 2 .5 2.3


to obtain new
accounts
Don't Know 375 97.7 100.0
Total 384 100.0
ANGELES UNIVERSITY FOUNDATION
COLLEGE OF CRIMINAL JUSTICE EDUCATION PAGE
120

Table 24 presents the characteristic of

victimization according to identity theft. It can be

seen on the table that there are 384 respondents were

the majority answered dont know which indicates

that they didnt know which episode of identity theft

was most recently discovered, the least of them

answered Personal information to obtain new accounts

which indicates that it was the least of the most

recently discovered identity theft. Those who

answered existing credit cards are 7 in number.

1.5 percent of survey participants reported that

in the last year they had discovered that their

personal information had been misused to open new

credit accounts, take out new loans, or engage in

other types of fraud, such as misuse of the victims

name and identifying information when someone is

charged with a crime, when renting an apartment, or

when obtaining medical care (New Accounts & Other

Frauds ID Theft). This result suggests that almost

3.25 million Americans discovered that their personal

information had been misused in this kind of fraud in

the past year (Synovate, 2003).


ANGELES UNIVERSITY FOUNDATION
COLLEGE OF CRIMINAL JUSTICE EDUCATION PAGE
121

It is uncommon to the residence of Angeles City

the crime of identity theft, the majority of them

were not yet been victimized of this crime, but

according to Synovate 2003, the most recently

discovered identity theft is the misused of personal

identification to open new credit accounts, take out

new loans, or engage in other types of fraud, such as

misuse of the victims name and identifying

information when someone is charged with a crime,

when renting an apartment, or when obtaining medical

care. There are few that were victimized of identity

theft, additional care and responsibility to the card

holders are advisable, and to prevent the situation

from happening, the police and other law enforcement

agencies may help by means of providing assistance to

those who were victimized and to track down the

perpetrator so that the crime wont happen again, and

to warn other card holders about the modus operandi

of the criminals.

Table 25. Characteristic of victimization according

to Vandalism
ANGELES UNIVERSITY FOUNDATION
COLLEGE OF CRIMINAL JUSTICE EDUCATION PAGE
122

Frequency Percent Cumulative Percent

Yes 49 12.8 12.8


No 335 87.2 100.0
Total 384 100.0

Table 25 presents the characteristic of

victimization according to vandalism. It can be seen

on the table that there are 384 respondents were the

majority answered no which indicates that they

werent victimized of vandalism by means of

intentionally damaged or destroyed property owned by

them or someone else on their household, and the

least of them answered yes which indicates that they

were victimized of vandalism by means of

intentionally damaged or destroyed property owned by

them or someone else on their household.

However, rates rose by 24% for theft of personal

property, 42% for theft of household property and 17%

for vandalism (The Daily 2005).

According to The Daily 2005, the rate of

vandalism in Canada rose at 17%, the percentage might


ANGELES UNIVERSITY FOUNDATION
COLLEGE OF CRIMINAL JUSTICE EDUCATION PAGE
123

not be that high compared to other crimes committed,

it is still quite alarming to the Canadian people,

luckily the majority of the Filipinos are not yet

victimized of vandalism particularly in Angeles City,

but considering that there are 12.8% that was

victimized, the aid of police and other law

enforcement agencies are needed, by means of

providing additional preventive measures, patrolling,

and making the community feels safe of their

surroundings by their presence.

Frequency Percent Cumulative


Percent
Motor vehicle 16 4.2 4.2
(including parts)
Bicycle (including 2 .5 4.7
parts)
Mailbox 2 .5 5.2
House 13 3.4 8.6
window/screen/door
Yard or garden (trees, 1 .3 8.9
shrubs, fence, etc.)
Furniture, other 1 .3 9.1
household goods
Clothing 10 2.6 11.7
Animal (pet, 11 2.9 14.6
livestock, etc.)
Others 7 1.8 16.4
None 321 83.6 100.0
Total 384 100.0
ANGELES UNIVERSITY FOUNDATION
COLLEGE OF CRIMINAL JUSTICE EDUCATION PAGE
124

Table 26. Characteristic of victimization according

to Vandalism

Table 26 presents the characteristic of

victimization according to vandalism. It can be seen

on the table that there are 384 respondents where the

majority of the respondents that were victimized of

vandalism indicates that motor vehicle including

parts are those being vandalized by the perpetrator,

the least of them are yard or garden (trees, shrubs,


ANGELES UNIVERSITY FOUNDATION
COLLEGE OF CRIMINAL JUSTICE EDUCATION PAGE
125

fence, etc.) and furniture other household goods.

Those Bicycle (including parts), and Mailbox are 2 in

number, House window/screen/door are 13 in number,

Clothing are 10 in number, Animal (pet, livestock,

etc.) are 11 in number, Others are 7 in number.

According to Jones 2014, property theft (15%)

and vandalism (14%) are the most common crime for

U.S. households, followed by burglary (6%).

The study of Jones 2014, did not include the

specific type of damaged or destroyed property as the

result of vandalism, but the average percentage of

vandalism in the United States, unfortunately the

number of the respondents that were victimized of

vandalism are 63 in number or 16.41% from the total

number of the respondents. In order to lessen the

incident to happen, the owner of the dwelling,

premises, building, or whatsoever should take

responsibility in protecting the same, and also the

police and other law enforcement agencies may help by

means of providing additional measures like deploying

troops on the area that may be targeted to vandalism.


ANGELES UNIVERSITY FOUNDATION
COLLEGE OF CRIMINAL JUSTICE EDUCATION PAGE
126

Frequency Percent Cumulative


Percent
20 5.2 5.2
Broken glass: window,
windshield, glass in
door, mirror

Defaced: marred, 4 1.0 6.3


graffiti, dirtied
Burned: use of fire, 6 1.6 7.8
heat or explosives
Drove into or ran over 3 .8 8.6
with vehicle
Other breaking or 1 .3 8.9
tearing
Others 2 .5 9.4
None 348 90.6 100.0
Total 384 100.0

Table 27. Characteristic of victimization according

to Vandalism
ANGELES UNIVERSITY FOUNDATION
COLLEGE OF CRIMINAL JUSTICE EDUCATION PAGE
127

Table 27 presents the characteristic of

victimization according to vandalism according to

what kind of damage was done in this/these act(s) of

vandalism. It can be seen on the table that there are

384 respondents where the majority of the respondents

that were victimized of vandalism indicates Broken

glass: window, windshield, glass in door, mirror as

the kind of damage done to them, the least of them

are Other breaking or tearing. Those Defaced: marred,

graffiti, dirtied are 4 in number, Burned: use of

fire, heat or explosives are 6 in number, Drove into

or ran over with vehicle are 3 in number, and others

are 2 in number.

According to Geason & Wilson 1990, From

international evidence, they concluded that reducing

graffiti and vandalism would best be accomplished not

only by increasing the risk of capture of offenders,

but also by diverting motivation by involving young

people - and the community as a whole.


ANGELES UNIVERSITY FOUNDATION
COLLEGE OF CRIMINAL JUSTICE EDUCATION PAGE
128

Based from findings of the researchers, the

majority of the respondents were victimized of

vandalism, and according to the study of Geason &

Wilson 1990, reducing graffiti and vandalism would

best be accomplished not only by increasing the risk

of capture of offenders, but also by diverting

motivation by involving young people - and the

community as a whole. On the other country

particularly in Australia vandalism is one of their

problem, and luckily in the Philippines particularly

in Angeles City, vandalism is not that usual, but

still there are quantity of respondents that were

already victimized which are 36 in number or 9.3%

from the total number of the respondents which are

384. The police and other law enforcement agencies

could able to lessen or if necessary prevent the

crime from happening by means of providing additional

troops into dark places like streets or other area

that vandalism may arise or anything that they think

may be best suitable to the situation.


ANGELES UNIVERSITY FOUNDATION
COLLEGE OF CRIMINAL JUSTICE EDUCATION PAGE
129

Table 28. Characteristic of victimization according

to Vandalism

Frequency Percent Cumulative


Percent
21 5.5 5.5
P __________

Don't Know 352 91.7 97.1


No cost 11 2.9 100.0
Total 384 100.0
Table 28 presents the characteristic of

victimization according to vandalism according to

total amount of the damage caused by the acts of

vandalism during the last 6 months. It can be

seen on the table that there are 384 respondents

were the majority answered dont know which

indicates that they didnt know the amount of

damage caused by the acts of vandalism, the least of

them answered no cost which indicates that the

damage caused by the acts of vandalism has no cost.

Those who answered Philippine peso are 21 in

number.

About 6% of U.S. households experienced

vandalism. According to victim self-reports, vandalism


ANGELES UNIVERSITY FOUNDATION
COLLEGE OF CRIMINAL JUSTICE EDUCATION PAGE
130

cost a total of about $1.7 billion in damage in 2000

(Klaus, 2002).
Based from the findings of the researchers the

majority of the respondents didnt know the amount of

damaged caused by the act vandalism to them, but

according to Klaus 2002, it reaches the total of $1.7

billion caused by the acts of vandalism. Few citizens

of Angeles City knew the cost of vandalism to them

because they undergo repair and renovation to the

damaged area, others that has no care at all didnt

mind their selves in repairing the damages done to

them thats why huge number of respondents didnt

know the cost of vandalism done to them.

Table 29. Characteristic of victimization according


to Vandalism

Frequency Percent Cumulative


Percent
12 3.1 3.1
Under P4,500

P4,500 or more 24 6.3 9.4


Don't Know 348 90.6 100.0
Total 384 100.0

Table 29 presents the characteristic of

victimization according to vandalism according to the


ANGELES UNIVERSITY FOUNDATION
COLLEGE OF CRIMINAL JUSTICE EDUCATION PAGE
131

amount of damage if under P4,500 or P4,500 or more.

It can be seen on the table that there are 384

respondents were the majority answered dont know

which indicates that they didnt know the cost of

damage caused by vandalism, the least of them

answered under P4,500 which indicates the cost of

vandalism. Those who answered P4,500 or more are 24

in number.

Amounts of up to $30 million dollars per year

have been used as the estimated cost of graffiti

removal within Western Australia. However in reality

this figure is likely to be grossly underestimated

due to the difficulty in obtaining an accurate cost

largely to the nature of graffiti offences, its

reporting and removal. In 2005, the cost of criminal

damage Australia wide, which included but was not

limited to graffiti vandalism, was estimated to be

$1.58 billion annually (State Graffiti Task Force).

Based from the findings of the researchers, the

majority of the respondents didnt know the cost of

vandalism happened to them, but according to State

Graffiti Task Force, $30 million dollars per year


ANGELES UNIVERSITY FOUNDATION
COLLEGE OF CRIMINAL JUSTICE EDUCATION PAGE
132

have been used as the estimated cost of graffiti

removal within the Western Australia. Fortunately in

the Philippines only few were victimized of graffiti

as a form of vandalism, but still in order to

maintain the peace and harmony in the society, the

police together with other law enforcement agencies

if necessary take additional preventive measures to

prevent the crime from happening or to suppress the

numbers of being victimized.

Table 30. Characteristic of victimization according

to Hate crime

Frequency Percent Cumulative


Percent
Yes 10 2.6 2.6
No 174 45.3 47.9
Don't Know 200 52.1 100.0
Total 384 100.0
ANGELES UNIVERSITY FOUNDATION
COLLEGE OF CRIMINAL JUSTICE EDUCATION PAGE
133

Table 30 presents the characteristic of

victimization according to hate crime. It can be seen

on the table that there are 384 respondents were the

majority answered dont know which indicates that

they didnt know if vandalism is the cause of hate

crime or crime prejudice or bigotry, the least of

them answered yes which indicates that they suspect

vandalism as a caused of hate crime or crime

prejudice or bigotry. Those who answered no are 174

in number.

Nearly 90% of the hate crime victimizations

occurred during the 7-year period were perceived to

be racially or ethnically motivated (Langton & Planty

2011).

According to Langton & Planty 2011, hate crime

were perceived racially and or ethnically, it is in

contrast to the survey question that the reason to

suspect vandalism is because of hate crime, and it is

not that alarming that hate crime is the reason

behind vandalism. A huge number of respondents says

that they didnt know the correlation of vandalism

and hate crime, in general the Philippines,


ANGELES UNIVERSITY FOUNDATION
COLLEGE OF CRIMINAL JUSTICE EDUCATION PAGE
134

specifically Angeles City is safe from hate crime,

and it is not a big problem in terms of crimes

committed in the community.

Table 31. Characteristic of victimization according

to Hate crime

Frequency Percent Cumulative


Percent
Yes 7 1.8 1.8
No 192 50.0 51.8
Don't Know 185 48.2 100.0
Total 384 100.0

Table 31 presents the characteristic

of victimization according to hate crime. It can be seen

on the table that there are 384 respondents were the

majority answered no which indicates that they didnt

propose if the offender(s) say something, write

anything or leave anything behind at the crime scene

that would suggest they were targeted because of

their characteristics or religious beliefs, the least

of them answered yes which indicates that they were

victimized of hate crime by means of the offender(s)


ANGELES UNIVERSITY FOUNDATION
COLLEGE OF CRIMINAL JUSTICE EDUCATION PAGE
135

saying something, write anything, or leave anything

behind at the crime scene that would suggest that

they were targeted because of characteristics or

religious beliefs. Those who answered dont know are

185 in number.

In the study of Freilich & Chermak, victims in

15 percent of hate crimes thought it was motivated by

sexual orientation, in 12 percent of crimes they

thought it was motivated by religious bias, and in 10

percent of crimes they suspected the motivation was

against their disability. The most common hate crime

was simple assault (64 percent), followed by

aggravated assault (16 percent).

According to the study of Freilich & Chermak,

12% of hate crime was motivated by religious bias,

but it is approximately similar to the findings of

the researchers wherein they got only 1.8% of

respondents that says that hate crime was motivated

by religious bias. But it is not the issue because a

huge number of respondents were contrary to the

query, and it is unusual crime committed in Angeles

City.
ANGELES UNIVERSITY FOUNDATION
COLLEGE OF CRIMINAL JUSTICE EDUCATION PAGE
136

Table 32. Characteristic of victimization according

to Hate Crime

Frequency Percent Cumulative


Percent
Yes 9 2.3 2.3
No 228 59.4 61.7
Don't Know 147 38.3 100.0
Total 384 100.0

Table 32 presents the characteristic

of victimization according to hate crime. It can be seen

on the table that there are 384 respondents were the

majority answered no which indicates that they

werent victimized of hate crime by means of the

action of the offender to make fun of you, make

negative comments, use slang, hurtful words, or

abusive language, the least of them answered yes

which indicates that they were victimized by

means of making fun of them make negative comments,

use slang, hurtful words, or abusive language.

Those who answered dont know are 147 in number.

According to Harlow 2005, victims of hate crimes

knew the crime they experienced was hate related


ANGELES UNIVERSITY FOUNDATION
COLLEGE OF CRIMINAL JUSTICE EDUCATION PAGE
137

because offenders made fun of them, made negative

comments, used slang, hurtful words, or abusive

language. About 99% of victims encountered hate-

related language, irrespective of the offenders'

motives.

Based from the findings of the researchers

59.4% or the majority of the respondents says that

they were not yet been victimized of hate crime, but

according to Harlow 2005, about 99% of victims of

hate crime encountered hate-related language. It is

grateful to know that in Angeles City hate crime is

not that common, and that majority of the respondents

have not yet victimized by this type of crime, so the

public wouldnt worry too much about the crime but

still there is a minute possibility that the crime

might be committed, but with the aid of police and

other law enforcement agencies it can prevent the

crime from happening or it may be suppress.

Table 33. Characteristic of victimization according

to Hate Crime
Frequency Percent Cumulative
Percent
Yes 10 2.6 2.6
No 234 60.9 63.5
Don't Know 140 36.5 100.0
Total 384 100.0
ANGELES UNIVERSITY FOUNDATION
COLLEGE OF CRIMINAL JUSTICE EDUCATION PAGE
138

Table 33 presents the characteristic of

victimization according to hate crime. It can be seen

on the table that there are 384 respondents were the

majority answered no which indicates that they

didnt suspect hate symbols in the crime scene as

a form of hate crime, the least of them answered yes

which indicates that they suspect hate symbol at the

crime scene as a form of hate crime. Those who

answered dont know are 140 in number.

According to the study of Wilson 2014, an

estimated 293,800 violent and property hate crime

victimizations occurred in 2012 against persons age

12 or older residing in U.S. households. Victims

perceived that over half (51%) of hate crimes were

motivated by ethnicity bias in 2012, which was higher

than the percentage in 2011 (30%) and 2004 (22%). The

percentage of hate crimes motivated by religious bias

nearly tripled from 10% in 2004 to 28% in 2012, while

the percentage of hate crimes motivated by gender

bias more than doubled from 12% to 26% during the

same period. An estimated 60% of hate crime


ANGELES UNIVERSITY FOUNDATION
COLLEGE OF CRIMINAL JUSTICE EDUCATION PAGE
139

victimizations were not reported to police in 2012.

This was a slight decline from 2011, when about

three-quarters (74%) of hate crime victimizations

were not reported to police. The percentage of hate

crimes involving violence increased from 78% in 2004

to 90% in 2011 and 2012. The rate of violent hate

crime against Hispanics more than tripled from 0.6

per 1,000 persons age 12 or older in 2011 to 2.0 per

1,000 in 2012. In 2012, the offender had a weapon in

at least 24% of violent hate crime victimizations,

and the victim sustained an injury in 20% of violent

hate crime victimizations.

Based from the findings of the researchers the

majority of the respondents didnt suspect hate

symbols left in the crime scene as a form of hate

crime, and according to the study of Wilson 2014, it

tackles only the percentage of the forms of hate

crimes that may be committed and others and it didnt

talks about the hate symbol that may be seen on the

crime scene. There are very minimal number of

respondents that suspect hate symbols in the crime

scene as a form of hate crime, but it is on the sole


ANGELES UNIVERSITY FOUNDATION
COLLEGE OF CRIMINAL JUSTICE EDUCATION PAGE
140

discretionary of the police and other law enforcement

agencies on how to identify and solve the case.

Table 34. Characteristic of victimization according

to Hate Crime

Frequency Percent Cumulative


Percent
Yes 6 1.6 1.6
No 219 57.0 58.6
Don't Know 159 41.4 100.0
Total 384 100.0

Table 34 presents the characteristic of

victimization according to hate crime. It can be seen

on the table that there are 384 respondents were the

majority answered no which indicates that the police

didnt suspect the motive of the offender against

people with certain characteristics or religious

beliefs, the least of them answered yes which

indicates that the police suspect the motive of the

offender against people with certain characteristics

or religious beliefs. Those who answered dont know

are 159 in number.


ANGELES UNIVERSITY FOUNDATION
COLLEGE OF CRIMINAL JUSTICE EDUCATION PAGE
141

Overall, 8% of hate crime victims reported to

the NCVS that law enforcement determined the

victimization to be bias related. According to

victims, police validated approximately 1 in 5 hate

crime victimizations that were reported to them as

hate crimes (Harlow, 2005).

According to Harlow 2005, police validated

approximately 1 in 5 hate crime victimizations that

were reported to them as hate crime, and 1.6% of the

respondents based from the findings of the

researchers that the police suspect the motive of the

offender against people with certain characteristics

or religious beliefs but still the majority of the

respondents says that the police didnt suspect the

motive of the offender against people with certain

characteristics or religious beliefs, it is always

based on the discretionary of the police to identify

if the crime is a hate crime or not.

Table 35. Characteristic of victimization according

to Hate Crime
ANGELES UNIVERSITY FOUNDATION
COLLEGE OF CRIMINAL JUSTICE EDUCATION PAGE
142

Table 35 presents the characteristic of victimization

according to hate crime. It can be seen on the table that

Frequency Percent Cumulative


Percent
Yes 4 1.0 1.0
No 229 59.6 60.7
Don't Know 151 39.3 100.0
Total 384 100.0
there are 384 respondents were the majority answered

no which indicates that the offender didnt commit any

similar hate crimes on the past, the least of them

answered yes which indicates that they suspect offender

that they committed similar hate crime in the past. Those

who answered dont know are 151 in number.

According to Hate Crime Statistics 2009, in 2009,

4,793 victims of hate crimes were victims of crimes

against persons and 3,517 victims of hate crimes were

victims of crimes against property.

Based from the findings of the researchers the

majority of the respondents say that the offender

didnt commit any similar hate crimes in the past,

and the study of Hate Crime Statistics 2009,

indicates that targets of hate crimes were victims of


ANGELES UNIVERSITY FOUNDATION
COLLEGE OF CRIMINAL JUSTICE EDUCATION PAGE
143

crimes against persons and crimes against property

and only 1% of the total number of respondents agree

that the offender committed similar hate crimes in

the past, but it is still on the sole discretionary

of the police and other law enforcement agencies to

identify and solve the problem.

Table 36. Characteristic of victimization according

Frequency Percent Cumulative


Percent
Yes 2 .5 .5
No 223 58.1 58.6
Don't Know 159 41.4 100.0
Total 384 100.0
to Hate Crime

Table 36 presents the characteristic of

victimization according to hate crime. It can be seen

on the table that there are 384 respondents were the

majority answered no which indicates that they didnt

suspect vandalism as a form of hate crime committed


ANGELES UNIVERSITY FOUNDATION
COLLEGE OF CRIMINAL JUSTICE EDUCATION PAGE
144

on place or events associated with a specific

group, the least of them answered yes which indicates

that they suspect vandalism as hate crime occurred on

or near a holiday, event, location, gathering place

or building commonly associated with a specific

group. Those who answered dont know are 159 in

number.

The majority of hate motivated offenses directed

against property (84.4 percent) involved destruction,

damage, or vandalism (CRIME in the U.S. 2004).

Based from the findings of the researchers the

majority of the respondents didnt suspect vandalism

as a form of hate crime, but it is in contrast to the

study of CRIME in the U.S. 2004, which indicates that

hate crimes were motivated by means of destruction,

damage, or vandalism. Hate crime is not that quite

alarming with a total of .5% of the total number of

respondents that says vandalism is a form of hate

crime, but it is still on the sole discretionary of

the police and other law enforcement agencies to

identify and solve the crime.


ANGELES UNIVERSITY FOUNDATION
COLLEGE OF CRIMINAL JUSTICE EDUCATION PAGE
145

Table 37. Characteristic of victimization according

to Hate Crime

Frequency Percent Cumulative


Percent
Yes 7 1.8 1.8
No 223 58.1 59.9
Don't Know 154 40.1 100.0
Total 384 100.0

Table 37 presents the characteristic of victimization

according to hate crime. It can be seen on the table that

there are 384 respondents were the majority answered

no which indicates that they werent been victimized of

hate crime at their neighborhood area, the least of them

answered yes which indicates that they were victimized of

hate crime at their neighborhood area. Those who answered

dont know are 154 in number.

More than 53% of these thrill offenses were committed

by two or more offenders looking for trouble in the

victims neighborhood. Their intention is to send a

message not just to that neighbor but to all Blacks,

informing them that their presence in the neighborhood

will not be tolerated (Levin & McDevitt 2008).


ANGELES UNIVERSITY FOUNDATION
COLLEGE OF CRIMINAL JUSTICE EDUCATION PAGE
146

It is not quite alarming that the hate crime is not

that common in the Philippines unlike to the other

countries, and according to Levin & McDevitt 2008, 53% of

hate crime were committed on their neighborhood by two or

more offenders and in contrast based from the findings of

the researchers a huge number of respondents says that

they were not yet been victimized of hate crime.

Frequency Percent Cumulative


Percent
Yes 3 .8 .8
No 240 62.5 63.3
Don't Know 141 36.7 100.0
Total 384 100.0

Table 38. Characteristic of victimization according

to Hate Crime

Table 38 presents the characteristic of

victimization according to hate crime. It can be seen

on the table that there are 384 respondents were the

majority answered no which indicates that they didnt

suspect vandalism as a hate crime based on their

feelings, instincts, or perception, the least of them

answered yes which indicates that their feelings,


ANGELES UNIVERSITY FOUNDATION
COLLEGE OF CRIMINAL JUSTICE EDUCATION PAGE
147

instincts, or perception lead them to suspect

vandalism as a form of hate crime.

According to the study of Lee et. Al.,

Respondents perceptions continue to weigh heavily in

classifying property and personal crimes as hate-

related.

Based from the findings of the researchers the

majority of the respondents didnt suspect vandalism

as a hate crime based from their feelings, instincts,

or perception, rather, based from the study of Lee

et. Al., respondents perceptions weigh in

classifying property and personal crimes as hate-

related crime. Hate crime is not that significant in

the Philippines specifically in Angeles City, but it

is still with the sole discretionary of the police

and other law enforcement agencies to identify and

solve the problem.

Problem number 3. Details of victimization as to

unwanted contacts/harassing behavior, number of

perpetrators, relationship with the perpetrator,

onset duration and resistance, other crimes and


ANGELES UNIVERSITY FOUNDATION
COLLEGE OF CRIMINAL JUSTICE EDUCATION PAGE
148

injuries, response of the victim, and criminal

justice and other response.

Frequency Percent Cumulative


Percent

Making unwanted phone 19 4.9 4.9


calls to you or
leaving messages

Sending unsolicited or 9 2.3 7.3


unwanted letters, e-
mails, or other forms
of written
correspondence or
communication
Following you or 52 13.5 20.8
copying on you
Waiting outside or 4 1.0 21.9
inside places for you
such as your home,
school, workplace, or
recreation place
Posting information or 2 .5 22.4
spreading rumors about
you on the Internet
None 298 77.6 100.0
Total 384 100.0
Table 39. Details of victimization according to unwanted

contacts/harassing behavior
ANGELES UNIVERSITY FOUNDATION
COLLEGE OF CRIMINAL JUSTICE EDUCATION PAGE
149

Table 39 presents the Details of victimization

according to unwanted contacts/harassing behavior. It

can be seen on the table that there are 384

respondents were the majority that already victimized

are 34 in number or 8.85% from the total number of

respondents, and that the majority of them

experienced unwanted contacts/harassing behavior by

means of following or copying them, the least of them

are posting information or spreading rumors about

them in the internet. Those who answer Making

unwanted phone calls to you or leaving messages are


ANGELES UNIVERSITY FOUNDATION
COLLEGE OF CRIMINAL JUSTICE EDUCATION PAGE
150

19 in number, Sending unsolicited or unwanted

letters, e-mails, or other forms of written

correspondence or communication are 9 in number, and

Waiting outside or inside places for you such as your

home, school, workplace, or recreation place are 4 in

number

During a 12-month period, an estimated 1.5% of

persons age 18 or older were victims of stalking. The

percentage of stalking victims was highest for

individuals who were divorced or separated (3.3%),

compared to those married, never married, or widowed

(Catalano, 2012).

According to Catalano 2012, the victims of

stalking depends on age and to their civil status,

and on the study conducted by the researchers there

are a few number of respondents that already

victimized, but in general Angeles City is at peace

due to a lesser number of those who were victimized

of unwanted contacts/harassing behavior, but in able

to prevent the crime from happening again a

protective measures must takes place, it might be

with the help of police or other law enforcement


ANGELES UNIVERSITY FOUNDATION
COLLEGE OF CRIMINAL JUSTICE EDUCATION PAGE
151

agencies or with the own safekeeping of the citizens

themselves.

Table 40. Details of victimization according to

Number of Perpetrator

Frequency Percent Cumulative


Percent
Number of people, 133 34.6 34.6
specify _______
I don't Know 251 65.4 100.0
Total 384 100.0

Table 40 presents the details of victimization

according to number of perpetrator. It can be seen on

the table that there are 384 respondents were the

majority answered number of people, specify which

indicates that the number of perpetrator they

encounter might be one (1) person or more, the least

of them answered I dont know which indicates that

they didnt know the number of perpetrator they

encountered.
ANGELES UNIVERSITY FOUNDATION
COLLEGE OF CRIMINAL JUSTICE EDUCATION PAGE
152

Number of perpetrators among female victims,

among victims of rape, most bisexual and heterosexual

women reported having only one perpetrator in their

lifetime (62.3% and 72.3%, respectively). Among

victims of sexual violence other than rape,

approximately one-third of bisexual women (32.3%) and

one-half of heterosexual women (47.0%) reported

having one perpetrator approximately one-third of

lesbian women (38.6%), bisexual women (36.4%), and

heterosexual women (30.0%) reported three or more

perpetrators of sexual violence other than rape. The

differences between bisexual women and heterosexual

women in having one perpetrator of sexual violence

other than rape were statistically significant. All

other differences were not statistically significant.

Among male victims, Approximately 4 out of 10 gay men

(42.3%) and 1 in 2 heterosexual men (49.7%) who

reported experiencing sexual violence other than rape

reported having one perpetrator (data not shown).

One-third of gay men (33.0%) and more than one-

quarter of heterosexual men (27.0%) reported having

three or more perpetrators in their lifetime. The


ANGELES UNIVERSITY FOUNDATION
COLLEGE OF CRIMINAL JUSTICE EDUCATION PAGE
153

difference between the number of perpetrators for gay

men and heterosexual men were not statistically

significant. For each subgroup of men, the numbers

were too small to produce a reliable estimate for the

number of perpetrators for rape (Walters et al.,

2013).

In the survey conducted by the researchers a

huge number of respondents says that they didnt know

the number of perpetrator they were encounter, one

reason might because they wanted the situation to be

forgotten or they didn't bother themselves

remembering the perpetrator anymore, but according to

Walters et al. 2013, there are differences between

females and males in terms of number of perpetrators.

Table 41. Details of victimization according to

Number of Perpetrator

Frequency Percent Cumulative


Percent
Alone 39 10.2 10.2
Together 29 7.6 17.7
Don't Know 316 82.3 100.0
Total 384 100.0
ANGELES UNIVERSITY FOUNDATION
COLLEGE OF CRIMINAL JUSTICE EDUCATION PAGE
154

Table 41 presents the details of victimization

according to number of perpetrator. It can be seen on

the table that there are 384 respondents were the

majority answered dont know which indicates that

they didnt know if the perpetrators acts together or

not, the least of them answered together which

indicates that the perpetrators act together.

Those who answered alone are 39 in number.

According to Black 2011, for female rape

victims, 1 in 6 (16.4%) reported two perpetrators.

On the study of Black 2011, it didnt indicate

the relationship of the two perpetrators but their

study shows that 1 in 6 female rape victims reported

two perpetrators, it is somehow similar to the

findings of the researchers wherein the majority of

the respondents didnt know the relationship of two

perpetrators in the crime committed, it is hard to

make conclusion if the perpetrators were together

during the commission of an offense, but it is on the


ANGELES UNIVERSITY FOUNDATION
COLLEGE OF CRIMINAL JUSTICE EDUCATION PAGE
155

sole discretionary of the police to identify the

relationship of the both perpetrators.

Table 42. Details of victimization according to

Frequency Percent Cumulative


Percent
Yes 23 6.0 6.0
No 290 75.5 81.5
Don't Know 71 18.5 100.0
Total 384 100.0
Number of Perpetrator

Table 42 presents the details of victimization

according to number of perpetrator. It can be

seen on the table that there are 384 respondents were

the majority answered no which indicates that the

perpetrator of 3 or more didnt act in conspiracy or

together in committing a crime, the least of them

answered yes which indicates that the perpetrator of

3 or more acts in conspiracy or together in

committing a crime. Those who answered dont know

are 71 in number.
ANGELES UNIVERSITY FOUNDATION
COLLEGE OF CRIMINAL JUSTICE EDUCATION PAGE
156

In the study of Black 2011, 1 in 8 (12.4%)

female rape victims reported three or more

perpetrators in their lifetime.

The relationship between the perpetrators is not

included in the study of Black 2011, but it shows

that 1 in 8 female rape victims reported three or

more perpetrators in their lifetime. On the study

conducted by the researchers the majority of the

respondents indicate that on a three or more

perpetrators, they didnt act together in the

commission of an offense, and it is on the sole

discretionary of the police to identify the

relationship of between this perpetrators.

Table 43. Details of victimization according to

number of perpetrator
ANGELES UNIVERSITY FOUNDATION
COLLEGE OF CRIMINAL JUSTICE EDUCATION PAGE
157

Frequency Percent Cumulative


Percent
Co-workers 9 2.3 2.3
Members of Gang 7 1.8 4.2
Fraternity 6 1.6 5.7
Others 13 3.4 9.1
None 349 90.9 100.0
Total 384 100.0

Table 43 presents the details of victimization

according to number of perpetrator. It can be seen on

the table that there are 384 respondents were the

majority answered others which indicates that 3 or

more perpetrators of a crime is cannot be identified

by the victim if it is a group or whatsoever, the

least of them answered fraternity which indicates the

general nature of the group of perpetrator. Those who

answered Co-workers are 9 in number, and Members of

Gang are 7 in number

According to Perreault & Brennan (2009), self-

reported incidents of sexual assault were more likely

than robberies and physical assaults to involve an

offender who was known to the victim. In over half

(51%) of sexual assault incidents, the perpetrator


ANGELES UNIVERSITY FOUNDATION
COLLEGE OF CRIMINAL JUSTICE EDUCATION PAGE
158

was a friend, acquaintance, or neighbour of the

victim, compared to 29E% of robberies and 31% of

physical assaults.

The relationship of the perpetrator according to

the study of Perreault & Brennan (2009), is contrary

to the given choices from the questionnaire of the

researchers, 51% of the perpetrator of sexual assault

incident are may be the friend, acquaintance, or

neighbor of the victim, but on the findings of the

researchers the general nature of the group of the

perpetrators are cannot be properly classified, it

might be because the perpetrators didnt want to

articulate their relationship with one another or

maybe they have their own reason to hide their

relationship with each other, but still with the aid

of the police they may be able to find out the real

relationship between them.

Table 44. Details of victimization according to

Relationship with the perpetrator


ANGELES UNIVERSITY FOUNDATION
COLLEGE OF CRIMINAL JUSTICE EDUCATION PAGE
159

Frequency Percent Cumulative


Percent
Male 50 13.0 13.0
Female 62 16.1 29.2
Don't Know 42 10.9 40.1
None 230 59.9 100.0
Total 384 100.0

Table 44 presents the details of victimization

according to Relationship with the perpetrator. It

can be seen on the table that there are 384

respondents were the majority answered female which

indicates that the usual perpetrator that the

respondents were encountered are females, the least

of them answered dont know which indicates that they

didnt saw the face or physical appearance of the

perpetrator or they couldnt classify the identity of

the perpetrator. Those who answered male are 50 in

number.

According to NCVC 2012, Offenders are

overwhelmingly male, ranging from adolescents to the

elderly, some perpetrators are female. It is

estimated that women are the abusers in about 14% of


ANGELES UNIVERSITY FOUNDATION
COLLEGE OF CRIMINAL JUSTICE EDUCATION PAGE
160

cases reported among boys and 6% of cases reported

among girls.

Based from the findings of the researchers the

majority of the respondents encountered female

perpetrator and according to the study of NCVC 2012,

the majority of offenders are male followed by female

with at least 14% of cases reported among boys and 6%

of cases reported among girls. Being victimized is

sometimes a choice, but in order to prevent from

being victimized the citizen themselves must protect

themselves by not going home late, walking alone on a

dark places or street, or not being alert on their

surroundings, but of course with the help and aid of

police and other law enforcement agencies, they can

minimize the chances of the citizens from being

victimized of any crimes.


ANGELES UNIVERSITY FOUNDATION
COLLEGE OF CRIMINAL JUSTICE EDUCATION PAGE
161

Table 45. Details of victimization according to

Relationship with the perpetrator

Frequency Percent Cumulative


Percent
Ex-spouse 6 1.6 1.6
Parents or step 22 5.7 7.3
parents
Own child or step 3 .8 8.1
child
Brother/Sister 5 1.3 9.4
Other relative 9 2.3 11.7
Boyfriend/Girlfriend 10 2.6 14.3
Friend 3 .8 15.1
Roommate 4 1.0 16.1
Schoolmate 2 .5 16.7
Neighbor 5 1.3 18.0
None 315 82.0 100.0
Total 384 100.0

Table 45 presents the details of victimization

according to relationship with the perpetrator. It can be

seen on the table that there are 384 respondents were the

majority answered parents or step parents which indicates

that the usual perpetrator of the respondents are their

parents or step parents, the least of them answered

schoolmate which indicates that when they were victimized

it is their schoolmate who was the perpetrator. Those

who answered Ex-spouse are 6 in number, Own child or step


ANGELES UNIVERSITY FOUNDATION
COLLEGE OF CRIMINAL JUSTICE EDUCATION PAGE
162

child are 3 in number, Brother/Sister are 5 in

number, Other relative are 9 in number,

Boyfriend/Girlfriend are 10 in number, Friend are 3

in number, Roommate are 4 in number, and Neighbor

are 5 in number.

Among victims ages 18 to 29, two-thirds had a

prior relationship with the offender. The Bureau of

Justice Statistics (BJS) reports that 6 in 10 rape or

sexual assault victims said that they were assaulted

by an intimate partner, relative, friend or

acquaintance. A study of sexual victimization of

college women showed that 9 out of 10 victims knew

the person who sexually victimized them. [1] One

research project found that 34 percent of women

surveyed were victims of sexual coercion by a husband

or intimate partner in their lifetime (National

Institute of Justice).

Identifying the relationship of the victim to

the offender is essential to know the motive of the

latter, and according to the study of National

Institute of Justice, relationship with the

perpetrator is depends on what crimes are being


ANGELES UNIVERSITY FOUNDATION
COLLEGE OF CRIMINAL JUSTICE EDUCATION PAGE
163

committed, and unfortunately the majority of the

respondents were victimized by their parents or step-

parents. The police and other law enforcement

agencies if necessary maintain the peace and order to

the community and it cannot be attain without the

help of the citizens themselves, but with the join

cooperation of the both parties the crime can be

suppress or if possible prevent from happening.

Table 46. Details of victimization according to

Relationship with the perpetrator

Frequency Percent Cumulative Percent

Yes 36 9.4 9.4


No 348 90.6 100.0
Total 384 100.0

Table 46 presents the details of victimization

according to relationship with the perpetrator. It

can be seen on the table that there are 384

respondents were the majority answered no which

indicates that they werent live with the


ANGELES UNIVERSITY FOUNDATION
COLLEGE OF CRIMINAL JUSTICE EDUCATION PAGE
164

perpetrator, the least of them answered yes which

indicates that they live with the perpetrator.

According to the study of ABA 2015, about half

of the male victims' reasons and a third of the

female victims' reasons for not reporting their

intimate partner victimization to the police was

because it was a "private or personal matter." While

this reason was the most often given by both male and

female victims, it was given by male victims in a

significantly higher percentage than female victims.

Based from the findings of the researchers the

majority of the respondents did not live together

with the perpetrator, but according to the study of

ABA 2015, victimization occurs also with their

intimate partners, but they tend not to report to the

police about the incident because it was a private or

personal matter. It is very minimal to find

perpetrators that were living together with their

victim. The police and other law enforcement agencies

if necessary identify and protect those who were

victimized that are afraid of reporting due to their


ANGELES UNIVERSITY FOUNDATION
COLLEGE OF CRIMINAL JUSTICE EDUCATION PAGE
165

own reasons, but it is their duty to maintain the

peace and harmony in the community inside and out.

Table 47. Details of victimization according to Onset

duration and resistance

Frequency Percent Cumulative


Percent
Days/Incident, specify 6 1.6 1.6
_____
Weeks/incident, specify 70 18.2 19.8
_______
Months/Incident, 30 7.8 27.6
specify ______
Years/Incident, specify 97 25.3 52.9
______
None 181 47.1 100.0
Total 384 100.0

Table 47 presents the details of victimization

according to onset duration and resistance. It can be

seen on the table that there are 384 respondents were

the majority answered none which indicates that they

werent victimized of any crime in regards to the

specified date, the least of them answered

days/incident, specify which indicates that they were

victimized in the past few days. Those who answered

Weeks/incident, specify are 70 in number,


ANGELES UNIVERSITY FOUNDATION
COLLEGE OF CRIMINAL JUSTICE EDUCATION PAGE
166

Months/Incident, specify are 30 in number, and

Years/Incident, specify are 97 in number.

Inter-personal violence is an experience that is

both distributed very widely in the population, since

45 percent of women and 26 percent of men reported at

least one incident in their lifetimes (Walby & Allen

2004).

On the study of Walby & Allen 2004, it shows

that they were victimized at least once in their

lifetime regardless of the time it was committed, it

is somehow similar to the majority of the respondents

that were not yet been victimized of any crime, but

still a number of respondents were already victimized

a day ago, weeks ago, months ago, and years ago.

Police and other law enforcement agencies cannot

prevent the crime from happening, but they can

suppress it, but with additional preventive measures

that was not yet been used before must takes place so

that the community will be more satisfy to the duty

and responsibilities of the police and other law

enforcement agencies, in return the citizens will be

able to trust the both and to feel secure that the


ANGELES UNIVERSITY FOUNDATION
COLLEGE OF CRIMINAL JUSTICE EDUCATION PAGE
167

community is under control by people with specified

duties and responsibilities.

Table 48. Details of victimization according to Other

crimes and injuries

Frequency Percent Cumulative Percent

Yes 48 12.5 12.5


No 336 87.5 100.0
Total 384 100.0

Table 48 presents the details of

victimization according to other crimes and injuries. It

can be seen on the table that there are 384 respondents

were the majority answered no which indicates

that they werent victimized by means of illegally

enter or attempt to enter into their house/apartment,

the least of them answered yes which indicates that

they were victimized by means of illegally enter or

attempt to enter into their house/apartment.

Multiple residents are therefore more likely to

reduce effective guardianship, as multiple strangers


ANGELES UNIVERSITY FOUNDATION
COLLEGE OF CRIMINAL JUSTICE EDUCATION PAGE
168

may enter the home and gain knowledge of the

residents everyday activities (Bucher et al. 2010).

The study of Bucher et al. 2010, shows that

multiple strangers may enter the home, but according

to the study of the researchers, a huge number of

respondents were not yet been victimized of this type

of crime, but it is quite alarming that 12.5% of

respondents has been already victimized, the crime

may be prevented if the owner of the house/apartment

takes additional security measures on their dwelling

so that it is hard for the criminals to perpetrate on

their home.

Table 49. Details of victimization according to Other

crimes and injuries

Frequency Percent Cumulative Percent

Yes 15 3.9 3.9


No 369 96.1 100.0
Total 384 100.0
ANGELES UNIVERSITY FOUNDATION
COLLEGE OF CRIMINAL JUSTICE EDUCATION PAGE
169

Table 49 presents the details of victimization

according to other crimes and injuries. It can be

seen on the table that there are 384 respondents

were the majority answered no which indicates

that they werent victimized by means of illegally

enter or attempt to enter into their car, the least

of them answered yes which indicates that they

were victimized by means of illegally enter or

attempt to enter into their car.

According to the study of Baum et al. 2009, they

gathered a 3.8% of those victimized of illegally

entered car.

Illegally enter or attempt to enter to a car is

not that a big problem in Angeles City, because the

usual crime that may happen in according to motor

vehicle is carnapping, and the majority of the

respondents were not yet been victimized of illegally

enter or attempt to enter to a car, and according to

Baum et al. 2009, only 3.8% were victimized of this

type of crime.
ANGELES UNIVERSITY FOUNDATION
COLLEGE OF CRIMINAL JUSTICE EDUCATION PAGE
170

Table 50. Details of victimization according to

Other crimes and injuries

Frequency Percent Cumulative Percent

Yes 32 8.3 8.3


No 352 91.7 100.0
Total 384 100.0

Table 50 presents the details of victimization

according to other crimes and injuries. It can be

seen on the table that there are 384 respondents were

the majority answered no which indicates that they

werent victimized by means of damaging or destroying

property belonging to them, the least of them

answered yes which indicates that they were

victimized by means of damaging or destroying

property belonging to them.

According to Australian Bureau of Statistics

2015, exterior items were the most common type of

property damaged, defaced, or destroyed (for 65% of

all household victims.


ANGELES UNIVERSITY FOUNDATION
COLLEGE OF CRIMINAL JUSTICE EDUCATION PAGE
171

Lucky to say, based from the findings of the

researchers the majority of the respondents were not

yet been victimize of any destruction or damage to

property, but according to the study of Australian

Bureau of Statistics 2015, there are 65% of

households victims involving damaged, defaced, or

destroyed property. To retain the peace and order

into the society, the police and other law

enforcement agencies should if necessary provide

additional preventive measures to ensure the safety

and protection of the community.

Table 51. Details of victimization according to

Other crimes and injuries

Frequency Percent Cumulative


Percent
Bullet wounds 46 12.0 12.0
Stab wounds 18 4.7 16.7
Broken bones/fractured 11 2.9 19.5
Internal injuries 1 .3 19.8
Unconscious 1 .3 20.1
Bruises, black eye, 4 1.0 21.1
cuts, scratches,
swelling, chipped
teeth
Others 27 7.0 28.1
None 276 71.9 100.0
Total 384 100.0
ANGELES UNIVERSITY FOUNDATION
COLLEGE OF CRIMINAL JUSTICE EDUCATION PAGE
172

Table 51 presents the details of victimization

according to other crimes and injuries. It can be

seen on the table that there are 384 respondents were

the majority answered bullet wounds which indicates

that they were victimized of a crime and as a result

of it bullet wounds were inflicted to them, the least

of them answered internal injuries and unconscious

which indicates that they were victimized of an

offense and that the physical injuries they suffered

are the latter. Those who answered Stab wounds are 18

in number, Broken bones/fractured are 11 in number,

Bruises, black eye, cuts, scratches, swelling,

chipped teeth are 4 in number, and Others are 27 in

number.

According to Hutchins & Sinha 2013, four in ten

women (42%) victimized by their spouse in the

previous five years reported being physically

injured. This was more than double the proportion of

male victims (18%). The most common types of injury

reported by women who were physically injured were


ANGELES UNIVERSITY FOUNDATION
COLLEGE OF CRIMINAL JUSTICE EDUCATION PAGE
173

bruises (95%), followed by cuts, scratches or burns

(30%). Less frequently reported were fractures or

broken bones (9%) and internal injuries or

miscarriage (9% combined).

According to Philippine National Police Regional

Office 3 from January to June 2015 the crime

involving physical injuries are 400 in number of

0.11% from the total population within Angeles City

which is 358,539.

The majority of the respondents that were

victimized the most frequent physical injuries they

suffered is bullet wounds and that is contrary to the

findings of Hutchins & Sinha 2013, which indicates

that the most common types of physical injuries they

sustained is bruises followed by cuts, scratches, and

burns. Based from the findings of the researchers the

least of the physical injuries the respondents

sustained is internal injuries and unconsciousness

which is similar to the findings of Hutchins & Sinha

2013. After being victimized it is given that

physical injuries would be left to the body of the

victim, but depending on the discretion of the


ANGELES UNIVERSITY FOUNDATION
COLLEGE OF CRIMINAL JUSTICE EDUCATION PAGE
174

criminals. Unfortunately the most common physical

injuries that the victim sustained is bullet wounds

which is fatal, but in order to prevent any crime

from happening and to maintain peace and order, the

police must think for additional preventive measures

in securing the community specially the people.

Table 52. Details of victimization according to

Response of the victim

Frequency Percent Cumulative


Percent
Anxious/Concerned/Nervo 101 26.3 26.3
us
Annoyed/Angry/Mad 73 19.0 45.3
Frightened/Afraid/Panic 27 7.0 52.3
ked
Depressed/Hopeless/Sad 10 2.6 54.9
Helpless/Frustrated/Pow 7 1.8 56.8
erless
Suicidal Attempt 5 1.3 58.1
None 161 41.9 100.0
Total 384 100.0

Table 52 presents the details of victimization

according to response of the victim. It can be seen

on the table that there are 384 respondents were the

majority answered Anxious/concerned/nervous which


ANGELES UNIVERSITY FOUNDATION
COLLEGE OF CRIMINAL JUSTICE EDUCATION PAGE
175

indicates their feelings when they were victimized,

the least of them answered suicidal attempt. Those

who answered Annoyed/Angry/Mad are 73 in number,

Frightened/Afraid/Panicked are 27 in number,

Depressed/Hopeless/Sad are 10 in number, and

Helpless/Frustrated/Powerless are 7 in number.

Shock and numbness are usually considered a part

of the initial stage of the crisis reaction. Victims

are faced with a situation beyond their control, and

some may almost immediately go into shock and become

disoriented for a while. In many instances, physical

and emotional paralyses occur whereby the victim is

unable to make rational decisions such as reporting

the incident to the police or obtaining medical

attention. The individual loses control, feels

vulnerable, lonely, and confused; the sense of self

becomes invalidated (NCVC, 2012).

There are lot of reactions that a victim may

have suffered after being on a memorable situation of

their lives like being victimized of a crime, but

according to the NCVC 2012, shock and numbness are

usually the initial stage of the crisis reaction of


ANGELES UNIVERSITY FOUNDATION
COLLEGE OF CRIMINAL JUSTICE EDUCATION PAGE
176

the victim, while on the findings of the researchers

it is anxious/concerned/nervous are the initial

response of the victim, it is usual to feel angry

being on that kind of situation, but what is alarming

is the suicidal attempt, even though it only has 1.3%

of the total respondents, there are still a few

respondents who wanted to end their own life, and the

help of family members as well as police and other

law enforcement agencies are needed, so that the

situation may not be happen to any individuals.

Table 53. Details of victimization according to

Criminal Justice and Other Response

Frequency Percent Cumulative


Percent
43 11.2 11.2
Yes, specify

No 341 88.8 100.0


Total 384 100.0
ANGELES UNIVERSITY FOUNDATION
COLLEGE OF CRIMINAL JUSTICE EDUCATION PAGE
177

Table 53 presents the details of victimization

according to criminal justice and other response. It

can be seen on the table that there are 384

respondents were the majority answered no which

indicates that they didnt report to other law

enforcement agency whenever they were victimized, the

least of them answered yes which indicates that they

were reporting to other law enforcement agency

whenever they were victimized of a crime.

According to Dunbar, Sixty-six percent of the

lesbian victims reported the offense to law

enforcement as compared to 74% of victimized gay men

who reported the crime to law enforcement. The

remaining 26% of the cases were reported to the Anti-

Violence Project of the LAGLC.

According to Philippine National Police Regional

Office 3 from May to June 2015 those who were

victimized of any crime that reports the incident to

barangay are 147 in number or with the percentage of

0.04% from the total population within Angeles City

which is 358,539.
ANGELES UNIVERSITY FOUNDATION
COLLEGE OF CRIMINAL JUSTICE EDUCATION PAGE
178

In a place like provinces, some of the citizens

were practicing the reportage of the crime incident

to other law enforcement agencies first, like

barangays, before they proceed in reporting to the

police and according to Philippine National Police

Regional Office 3 from May to June 2015 there are 147

in number or 0.04% of victimized were reporting

victimization to the Barangay. But based from the

findings of the researchers the majority of the

respondents didnt report to other law enforcement

agencies whenever they were victimized of any crime,

but according to the study of Dunbar, 26% of the

cases of victimization were reported to Anti-Violence

Project of the LAGLC. It is good to know that other

than police there are other agencies that are willing

to help the citizens of a community in terms of

victimization, but with the joint forces of the

police and other law enforcement agencies peace and

harmony might be maintained on a community.

Table 54. Details of victimization according to

Criminal Justice and other response


ANGELES UNIVERSITY FOUNDATION
COLLEGE OF CRIMINAL JUSTICE EDUCATION PAGE
179

Frequency Percent Cumulative


Percent
Victim 43 11.2 11.2
Friend/Neighbor 65 16.9 28.1
Family/Relatives 31 8.1 36.2
School faculty 7 1.8 38.0
Security guard 13 3.4 41.4
Others 10 2.6 44.0
None 215 56.0 100.0
Total 384 100.0

Table 54 presents the victimization according to

criminal justice and other response. It can be seen on the

table that there are 384 respondents were the majority

answered friend/neighbor which indicates that the one

reporting victimization to other law enforcement agencies

are their friend or neighbors, the least of them answered

school faculty which indicates that whenever they were

victimized it is the latter who reported the

incident to other law enforcement agency. Those who

answered victim are 43 in number, family/relatives are 31

in number, security guard are 13 in number, and others are

10 in number.

According to Klein, Some victims are more likely

to report their victimization or revictimization than


ANGELES UNIVERSITY FOUNDATION
COLLEGE OF CRIMINAL JUSTICE EDUCATION PAGE
180

others. Research indicates that women who have more

experience with the criminal justice system

especially those with protective orders or who have

experienced more severe abuse histories are more

likely to call police. The seriousness of injury may

not increase victim reporting, however, because of

incapacity, the increased likelihood that a third

party will call in these cases, or the fact that

seriously injured victims are less likely to have

protective orders. Younger women, those in dating

relationships, and those with little prior contact

with the criminal justice system are less likely to

call police.

Based from the findings of the researchers the

majority of those who report victimization of the

victim are their friend or but according to the study

of Klein, women who have more experience with the

criminal justice system especially those with

protective orders or who have experienced more severe

abuse histories are more likely to call police.

Instead of reporting to other law enforcement

agencies the victims or relatives of the victims are


ANGELES UNIVERSITY FOUNDATION
COLLEGE OF CRIMINAL JUSTICE EDUCATION PAGE
181

prefer to report directly to the police after the

incident happened other than other law enforcement

agencies. But in order to maintain the peace and

order in the society the joint forces of police and

other law enforcement agencies if necessary should be

practiced.

Table 55. Details of victimization according to

Criminal Justice and other response

Frequency Percent Cumulative


Percent
Took a report 43 11.2 11.2
Talked to or warned 16 4.2 15.4
perpetrator
Referred respondent to 2 .5 15.9
a court or prosecutor
to a court or
prosecutor office
Ask for more 17 4.4 20.3
information
None 306 79.7 100.0
Total 384 100.0
ANGELES UNIVERSITY FOUNDATION
COLLEGE OF CRIMINAL JUSTICE EDUCATION PAGE
182

Table 55 presents the details of victimization

according to criminal justice and other response. It

can be seen on the table that there are 384

respondents were the majority answered Took a report

which indicates that whenever they are incidents of

reporting victimization the initial action of other

law enforcement agencies is to took a report about

the incident, the least of them answered referred

respondent to a court or prosecutor to a court or

prosecutor office which indicates that whenever they

were victimized the resort of other law enforcement

agency is to let them proceed to a higher level of

authority. Those who answered talked to or warned

perpetrator are 16 in number, and ask for more

information are 17 in number.

According to Dekmar 2010, law enforcement

organizations nationwide deal with complaints on a

frequent basis. Some citizen complaints are unfounded

or simple misunderstandings resulting from poor


ANGELES UNIVERSITY FOUNDATION
COLLEGE OF CRIMINAL JUSTICE EDUCATION PAGE
183

communication. However, even minor infractions can

become agency spectacles and a serious problem for

administrators if individuals carry their grievances

to third parties. Police leaders can easily prevent

citizen complaints from becoming political headaches,

lawsuits, racial disputes, or media storms by

emulating some of the medical communitys proactive

initiatives to reduce malpractice litigation when

patients experience negative outcomes. In addition to

a thorough policy of consistently handling

complaints, successful resolution requires patience,

a respectful response, and the right attitude on the

part of the supervisor receiving the complaint. If

done correctly, these three simple ingredients can

spare police agencies untold time, money, and

difficulty while helping the agency maintain its

credibility with the community.

Based from the findings of the researchers the

whenever the other law enforcement agencies like

barangay encountered reportage from the victims the

initial action they were into is to take a report,

but according to the study of Dekmar 2010, the law


ANGELES UNIVERSITY FOUNDATION
COLLEGE OF CRIMINAL JUSTICE EDUCATION PAGE
184

enforcer that handling the complaint requires

patience, a respectful response, and the right

attitude on receiving the complaint. In order to

maintain the peace and order to the society the joint

force of police and other law enforcement agencies

should if necessary practiced in the community to

gain the trust of the citizens.

Problem NumberFrequency Percent


3. Victimization rate as Cumulative
to offenses,
place, and time. Percent

Theft 39 10.2 10.2


Robbery 197 51.3 61.5
Murder 34 8.9 70.3
Homicide 5 1.3 71.6
Parricide 4 1.0 72.7
Abortion 5 1.3 74.0
Rape 38 9.9 83.9
Carnapping 30 7.8 91.7
Others 15 3.9 95.6
Don't Know 17 4.4 100.0
Total 384 100.0
ANGELES UNIVERSITY FOUNDATION
COLLEGE OF CRIMINAL JUSTICE EDUCATION PAGE
185

Table 56. Victimization rate according to Offenses

Table 56 presents victimization rate according

to offenses. It can be seen on the table that there

are 384 respondents were the majority answered

robbery which indicates that on their own perception

and knowledge with regards to the society, they

prefer that robbery is the most frequent crime

committed in Angeles City, the least of them answered

parricide which indicates that it is the least

offense committed in Angeles City. Those who answered

theft are 39 in number, murder are 34 in number,

homicide are 5 in number, abortion are 5 in number,

rape are 38 in number, carnapping are 30 in number,

others are 15 in number, and dont know are 17 in

number.

According to Goodman, the most common crime

committed in the United States is Property crimes,

and it includes burglary, larceny-theft, motor

vehicle theft, and arson. This criminal offense is

usually intended for properties and not individuals.


ANGELES UNIVERSITY FOUNDATION
COLLEGE OF CRIMINAL JUSTICE EDUCATION PAGE
186

Most of the time, there are no injured victims or

casualties; except for some arson cases.

According to Philippine National Police Regional

Office 3 From January to June 2015, the most frequent

crime committed in Angeles City were Physical

Injuries which is 400 in number or 0.11%, followed by

Theft which is 364 in number of 0.10%, and robbery

which is 168 in number or 0.05% from the total

population within Angele City which is 358,539.

Based from the findings of the researchers, the

most common crime suffered by the respondents in the

Philippines specifically in Angeles City is robbery,

and were agreed upon by the research of Goodman, and

according to his study the most common crime

committed in United States is property crimes but it

contrary to the findings of the Philippine National

Police Regional Office 3 wherein the most frequent

crime committed in Angeles City were Physical

Injuries. And as one of the resort in order to

minimize the crime, or to suppress the crime from

happening the police and other enforcement agencies

must have a day and night routine to patrol in every


ANGELES UNIVERSITY FOUNDATION
COLLEGE OF CRIMINAL JUSTICE EDUCATION PAGE
187

areas of the community, so that the chance of being

victimized will be lessen.

Table 57. Victimization rate according to Place


ANGELES UNIVERSITY FOUNDATION
COLLEGE OF CRIMINAL JUSTICE EDUCATION PAGE
188

Frequency Percent Cumulative


Percent
76 19.8 19.8
Public market

Park 64 16.7 36.5


School 32 8.3 44.8
Private house 74 19.3 64.1
Subdivision 51 13.3 77.3
Dark places 33 8.6 85.9
Public vehicles 9 2.3 88.3
Others 16 4.2 92.4
Don't Know 29 7.6 100.0
Total 384 100.0

Table 57 presents the victimization rate

according to place. It can be seen on the table that

there are 384 respondents were the majority answered

public market which indicates that the most frequent

place where the crime was committed is happened to

the latter, the least of them answered public vehicle

which indicates that the crime was least happened to


ANGELES UNIVERSITY FOUNDATION
COLLEGE OF CRIMINAL JUSTICE EDUCATION PAGE
189

the latter. Those who answered park are 64 in number,

school are 32 in number, private house are 74 in

number, subdivision are 51 in number, dark places are

33 in number, others are 16 in number, and dont

know are 29 in number.

According to RAINN 2009, approximately 50% of

all rape/sexual assault incidents were reported by

victims to have occurred within 1 mile of their home

or at their home. 7% take place in a school, 13% take

place at the home of a friend, neighbor, or relative,

18% take place in a public area, such as a commercial

venue, parking lot, or park.

Based from the findings of the researchers, the

majority of the respondents indicate that crimes were

most likely to be committed on a public market, which

is somehow similar to the findings of the RAINN 2009,

wherein they emphasize that incidents were reported

by victims to have occurred within 1 mile of their

home or at their home, while 7% take place in school,

13% take place at the home of a friend, neighbor, or

relative, and 18% take place in a public area, such

as a commercial venue, parking lot, or park. Anyone


ANGELES UNIVERSITY FOUNDATION
COLLEGE OF CRIMINAL JUSTICE EDUCATION PAGE
190

can be victimized of any crime, but it always depends

on the situation whether the victim are capable of

protecting themselves or there are presence of police

and other law enforcement officers in any areas of

the community or at an area which the rate of

victimization is high.

Table 58. Victimization rate according to Time

Frequency Percent Cumulative


Percent
Early morning, 12:00am- 44 11.5 11.5
6:00am
Morning, 6:00am - 28 7.3 18.8
12:00am
Afternoon, 12:00pm - 87 22.7 41.4
6:00pm
Evening, 6:00pm - 181 47.1 88.5
12:00pm
Don't Know 44 11.5 100.0
Total 384 100.0
ANGELES UNIVERSITY FOUNDATION
COLLEGE OF CRIMINAL JUSTICE EDUCATION PAGE
191

Table 58 presents the victimization rate

according to time. It can be seen on the table that

there are 384 respondent were the majority answered

evening, 6:00pm-12:00pm which indicates that the

crime was most frequent happened in the evening, the

least of them answered morning, 6:00am- 12:00am which

indicates that the crimes was least happened during

morning. Those who answered early morning, 12:00am-

6:00am are 44 in number, Afternoon, 12:00pm 6:00pm

are 87 in number, and Don't Know are 44 in number.

According to Catalano 2010, victims in 38% of

households burglarized while someone was home were

asleep at the time of the burglary.

On the study of Catalano 2010, it is not

necessary what exactly the time is, but it shows that

burglary happens when someone at home are asleep, and

according to the findings of the researchers majority

of the respondents says that crimes were most likely

to happen during evening, on that case the police and


ANGELES UNIVERSITY FOUNDATION
COLLEGE OF CRIMINAL JUSTICE EDUCATION PAGE
192

other law enforcement agencies must secure the

community by means of deploying more troops during

evening.

We live in a society of victimization, where

people are much more comfortable being victimized

than actually standing up for themselves Marilyn

Manson

It is normal when one person on a community was

already victimized of any crime, there might be many

other reasons why people prefer to steal than to

work, or to forgive than to kill, or to love than to

hate, everything in this world is made up of choices,

people lived based from their choices, and no one can

point you out what to do, other than you yourself.


ANGELES UNIVERSITY FOUNDATION
COLLEGE OF CRIMINAL JUSTICE EDUCATION PAGE
193

Chapter IV

CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

This chapter offers the conclusions and

recommendations of this study.

In the light of the findings in this study, the

following conclusions were drawn:

1. A huge number of residents of Angeles City were

not yet victimized of any crime, regardless of time,

day, and place of occurrence.


ANGELES UNIVERSITY FOUNDATION
COLLEGE OF CRIMINAL JUSTICE EDUCATION PAGE
194

2. Hate crimes and Identity theft were not that

usually known in the Philippines specifically by the

residents of Angeles City.

3. Having no guts in reporting, being desperate to

forget the incident happened, and being lazy, are

some of the factors why the citizens were not

reporting victimization to the police.

4. The most frequent crime experienced by the

residents of Angeles City is Robbery.

Recommendations
Based on the findings of this study, it is

recommended that:
1. To deploy additional police and/or other law

enforcement agencies on every areas or places where

the possible rate of victimization is high.


2. The police and/or other law enforcement agencies

if necessary prioritize the community relations so

that the citizens of a community would not be ashamed

to report the instances of any suspicious movement of


ANGELES UNIVERSITY FOUNDATION
COLLEGE OF CRIMINAL JUSTICE EDUCATION PAGE
195

any unknown person/s or being victimized of any

crime.
3. The citizens if necessary report to the police

and/or other law enforcement agencies like Barangay

about the incidents happened to them like being

victimized of any crime regardless of its gravity,

and if it affects the safety of the community.


4. The citizens if necessary practice being alert in

any times, typically when they were alone walking on

a dark places or a street, or they were going home

late, and when they were on somewhere away from their

home.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

A. JOURNALS

Andrew Karmen (20120. Crime Victims. An Introduction

To Victimology Sixth Edition.

Andrew R. Klein (June 09) Practical Implications Of

Current Domestic Violence Research: For Law

Enforcement, Prosecutors, And Judges


ANGELES UNIVERSITY FOUNDATION
COLLEGE OF CRIMINAL JUSTICE EDUCATION PAGE
196

Breitenbecher, K.H. & C.A. Gidycz (1998) An

Empirical Evaluation Of A Program Designed To Reduce

The Risk Of Multiple Sexual VictimizationJournal Of

Interpersonal Violence, 13(4): 472-488.

British Retail Consortium (Brc) 1998. Fifth Annual

Survey Of Crime: 1997. London: Brc

Buhs, E. S., Ladd, G. W., & Herald, S. L. (2006).

Peer Exclusion And Victimization: Processes That

Mediate The Relation Between Peer Group Rejection And

Childrens Classroom Engagement And Achievement?

Journal Of Educational Psychology, 1, 113.

Caroline Wolf Harlow(Nov. 2005) National Criminal

Victimization Survey And Uniform Crime Reporting.

Hate Crime Reported By Victims And Police

Cho, H. & D.J. Wilke. (2010) Gender Differences In

The Nature Of The Intimate Partner Violence And

Effects Of Perpetrator Arrest On Revictimization.

Journal Of Family Violence, 25: 393400.


ANGELES UNIVERSITY FOUNDATION
COLLEGE OF CRIMINAL JUSTICE EDUCATION PAGE
197

Chu, L.D. & Kraus, J.F. (2004). Predicting Fatal

Assault Among The Elderly Using The National

Incident-Reporting System Crime Data. Homicide

Studies, 8, 71-95.

Cohen, L. E. And Felson, M. Social Change And Crime

Rate Trends: A Routine Activity Approach. American

Daigle, L.E. (2012) Victimology: A Text/Reader.

Thousand Oaks, Ca: Sage.

David Finkelhor And Richard Ormrod (December 2000).

Juvenile Justice Bulletin.

Davis, R., P. Guthrie, T. Ross & C. Osullivan.

(2006) Reducing Sexual Revictimization, A Field Test

With An Urban Sample. Summary Report To The National

Institute Of Justice. Vera Institute Of Justice.

Desai, S., I. Arias, M.P. Thompson & K.C. Basil.

(2002) Childhood Victimization And Subsequent Adult

Revictimization Assessed In A Nationally

Representative Sample Of Women And Men. Violence And

Victims, 17(6): 639-653


ANGELES UNIVERSITY FOUNDATION
COLLEGE OF CRIMINAL JUSTICE EDUCATION PAGE
198

Earl Warren (April 2014). Revictimization And Related

Services: Literature Review

Edward Dunbar. The Importance Of Race And Gender

Membership In Sexual Orientation Hate Crime

Victimization And Reportage: Identity Politics Or

Identity Risk?

Erika Harrell (March 2011). Workplace Violence, 1993-

2009. National Crime Victimization Survey And The

Census Of Fatal Occupational Injuries.

Erika Harrell And Lynn Langton (Dec. 2013) .Victims

Of Identity Theft 2012

Farrington, D. P. (2002). Families And Crime. In J.

Q. Wilson & J. Petersilia (Eds.), Crime: Public

Policies For Crime Control. Oakland, Ca: Ics Press.

Felson, R.B., S.F. Messner, & A. Hoskin. (1999) The

VictimOffender Relationship And Calling The Police

In Assaults. Criminology, 37(4): 90117.


ANGELES UNIVERSITY FOUNDATION
COLLEGE OF CRIMINAL JUSTICE EDUCATION PAGE
199

Fisher, B.S., L.E. Daigle, F.T. Cullen, & M.G.

Turner. (2003) Reporting Sexual Victimization To The

Police And Others. Criminal Justice And

Behavior,30(1): 638.

Gondolf, E. W. (2002) Batterer Intervention Systems:

Issues, Outcomes, Recommendations Thousand Oaks, Ca:

Sage.

Hart, T.C., & C. Rennison. (2003) Reporting Crime To

The Police, 19922000. Bureau Of Justice Statistics

Special Report. Washington, Dc: U.S.Department Of

Justice.

Hill, T.D., L.M. Kaplan, M.T. French & R.J. Johnson.

(2010) Victimization In Early Life And Mental Health

In Adulthood: An Examination Of The Mediating And

Moderating Influences Of Psychosocial Resources.

Journal Of Health And Social Behaviour, 51(1) 4863.

Hindelang, M. J. , Gottfredson, M. R. , & Garofalo,

J. (1978). Victims Of Personal Crime: An Empirical


ANGELES UNIVERSITY FOUNDATION
COLLEGE OF CRIMINAL JUSTICE EDUCATION PAGE
200

Foundation For A Theory Of Personal Victimization.

Cambridge, Ma: Ballinger.

Jack Levin And Jack Mcdevitt (2008). Hate Crimes.

Prepared For The Encyclopedia Of Peace, Violence, And

Conflict, 2nd Ed., (Academic Press, Expected 2008).

Jacob Bucher (2010). Undocumented Victims: An

Examination Of Crimes Against Undocumented Male

Migrant Workers

Jennifer L. Truman & Michael Planty (October 2012).

Criminal Victimization, 2011

Jennifer Truman, Lynn Langton, And Michael Planty

(October 2013). Criminal Victimization, 2012

Jennings, W.G., G. E. Higgins, R. Tewksbury, A.R.

Grover, & A.R. Piquero. (2010) A Longitudinal

Assessment Of The Victim-Offender Overlap. Journal

Of Interpersonal Violence, 25(12): 2147-2174.


ANGELES UNIVERSITY FOUNDATION
COLLEGE OF CRIMINAL JUSTICE EDUCATION PAGE
201

Johnson, Holly (2005) Crime Victimisation In

Australia: Key Results Of The 2004 International

Crime Victimisation Survey, Australian Institute Of

Criminology Research And Public Policy Series No. 64,

Australian Institute Of Criminology, Canberra

Jukka Savolainen (2007) Family Structure And

Adolescent Victimization In Finland: Investigating

The Stepfamily As A Source Of Risk. Vol. 1 (2007),

Pp. 1727. Issn 1796-8739

Kathleen A Fox, Matt R Nobles And Alex R Piquero

(2009) Gender, Crime Victimization And Fear Of Crime.

Security Journal 22, 2439. Doi:10.1057/Sj.2008.13

Katrina Baum (November 2007). National Crime

Victimization Survey Identity Theft, 2005.

Katrina Baum Et Al. (January 2009). Stalking

Victimization In The United States.

Kellermann, A.L., & J.A. Mercy. (1992) Men, Women,

And Murder: Gender-Specific Differences In Rates Of


ANGELES UNIVERSITY FOUNDATION
COLLEGE OF CRIMINAL JUSTICE EDUCATION PAGE
202

Fatal Violence And Victimization. Journal Of Trauma

Injury Infection & Critical Care, 33(1): 1-5.

Kierkus, C. A., & Baer, D. (2002). A Social Control

Explanation Of The Relationship Between Family

Structure And Delinquent Behaviour. Canadian Journal

Of Criminology, 44, 425-458.

Kilpatrick, D.G., & R. Acierno. (2003) Mental Health

Needs Of Crime Victims: Epidemiology And Outcomes.

Journal Of Traumatic Stress, 16(2): 119-132.

Kilpatrick, D.G., B.E. Saunders, L.J. Veronen, C.L.

Best, & J.M. Von. (1987) Criminal Victimization:

Lifetime Prevalence, Reporting To Police, And

Psychological Impact. Crime And Delinquency, 33(4):

479-489.

Kristie R. Blevins, Et Al. (Dec. 2012).

UnderstandingDecisionsToBurglarizeFromTheOffenders

Perspective
ANGELES UNIVERSITY FOUNDATION
COLLEGE OF CRIMINAL JUSTICE EDUCATION PAGE
203

Lachs, M., Bachman, R. & Williams, C. (2004). Older

Adults As Crime Victims, Perpetrators, Witnesses, And

Complainants. Journal Of Elder Abuse & Neglect, 16,

25-40.

Londono, E. (2007). Robbers Stalk Hispanic

Immigrants, Seeking Ideal Prey. Washington Post

(October 26) P. A01.

Lynn Langton And Katrina Baum (June 2010). National

Crime Victimization Survey, 2007 .Identity Theft

Reported By Households, 2007 Statistical Tables.

Lynn Langton And Michael Planty (June 2011) Hate

Crime, 2003-2009.

Mariam Aukerman Et Al. Bjs/Search National Focus

Group On Identity Theft Victimization And Criminal

Record Repository Operations

Marieke C.A Liem & William Alex Pridemore. Handbook

Of European Homicide Research


ANGELES UNIVERSITY FOUNDATION
COLLEGE OF CRIMINAL JUSTICE EDUCATION PAGE
204

Marley, J.A., & S. Buila. (2001) Crimes Against

People With Mental Illness: Types, Perpetrators, And

Influencing Factors. Social Work, 46(2): 115-124.

Mears, D.P. (2003) Research And Interventions To

Reduce Domestic Violence Revictimization. Trauma,

Violence & Abuse, 4(2): 127-147.

Meredith Lee, Et. Al. Developing Hate Crime Questions

For The National Crime Victimization Survey

Michele C. Black Et Al. (Nov. 2011). The National

Intimate Partner And Sexual Violence Survey: 2010

Summary Report

Michele C. Black, Et Al. (November 2011). The

National Intimate Partner And Sexual Violence Survey

Mikel L. Walters Et Al. (January 2013) The National

Intimate Partner And Sexual Violence Survey (Nisvs):

2010 Findings On Victimization By Sexual Orientation.


ANGELES UNIVERSITY FOUNDATION
COLLEGE OF CRIMINAL JUSTICE EDUCATION PAGE
205

Philip J. Cook (1987) Robbery Violence. Journal Of

Criminal Law And Criminology. Volume 78. Article 6

Planty, M. (2007). Series Victimizations And

Divergence. In Lynch, J.P. & Addington, L.A. (Co-

Editors). Understanding Crime Statistics: Revisiting

The Divergence Of The Ncvs And Ucr (Pp. 156-182).

Cambridge University Press: Cambridge, U.K.

Philippine National Police Regional Office 3. 2015.

Statistics on all crime incidents

referred/processed/gathered by reporting police

office.

Rachel Thelin & Dona Sapp (Nov.2011). Indiana

Criminal Victimization Survey.Identity Theft Victims

In Indiana. Issue 11-C36

Raj, A., & Silverman, J. (2002). Violence Against

Immigrant Women: The Roles Of Culture, Context, And

Legal Immigrant Status On Intimate Partner Violence.

Violence Against Women, 8, 367398.


ANGELES UNIVERSITY FOUNDATION
COLLEGE OF CRIMINAL JUSTICE EDUCATION PAGE
206

Rand, M., & S. Catalano. (2007) Bureau Of Justice

Statistics Bulletin: Criminal Victimization, 2006.

Washington, Dc: U.S. Department Of Justice.

Rebellon, C. J. (2002). Reconsidering The Broken

Homes/Delinquency Relationship And Exploring Its

Mediating Mechanism(S). Criminology, 40, 103-135.

Rennison, C., & M. Planty. (2003) Nonlethal Intimate

Partner Violence: Examining Race, Gender, And Income

Patterns. Violence And Victims, 18(4): 433-443.

Ronald V. Clarke (1999) Hot Products: Understanding,

Anticipating And Reducing Demand For Stolen Goods

Ruback, R.B., V.A. Clark & C. Warner. (2013) Why Are

Crime Victims At Risk Of Being Victimized Again?

Substance Use, Depression, And Offending As Mediators

Of The VictimizationRevictimization Link. Journal

Of Interpersonal Violence, 29(1): 157185.


ANGELES UNIVERSITY FOUNDATION
COLLEGE OF CRIMINAL JUSTICE EDUCATION PAGE
207

Rutter, M., & Giller, H. (1983). Juvenile

Delinquency: Trends And Perspectives. Harmondsworth,

Uk.: Penguin Books.

Sampson, R.J., & J.L. Lauritsen. (1994) Violent

Victimization And Offending: Individual-,

Situational-, And Community-Level Risk Factors. In

Reiss, A.J., & J.A. Roth, (Eds.), Understanding And

Preventing Violence, Vol. 3. Washington, Dc: National

Academies Press. Pp. 1-114.

Schafer, J.A., B.M. Huebner, & T.S. Bynum. (2006)

Fear Of Crime And Criminal Victimization: Gender-

Based Contrasts. Journal Of Criminal Justice, 34(3):

285-301.

Schreck, C. J., & Fisher, B. S. (2004). Specifying

The Influence Of Family And Peers On Violent

Victimization: Extending Routine Activities And

Lifestyle Theories. Journal Of Interpersonal

Violence, 19, 1021-141.


ANGELES UNIVERSITY FOUNDATION
COLLEGE OF CRIMINAL JUSTICE EDUCATION PAGE
208

Schreck, C.J., E.A. Stewart, & D.W. Osgood. (2008) A

Reappraisal Of The Overlap Of Violent Offenders And

Victims. Criminology, 46(4): 871-906.

Shannan Catalano (Sept. 2012) Stalking Victims In The

United States Revised.

Shannan Catalano (Sept. 2010). Victimization

During Household Burglary

Shields, G., King, W.R. & Fulks, S. (2004).

Determinants Of Perceived Safety Among The Elderly:

An Exploratory Study. Journal Of Gerontological

Social Work, 38, 73-83.

Sociological Review Vol. 44 Pp. 588608. (1979).

Sofi Sinozich, & Lynn Langton, (Dec 2014) Rape And

Sexual Assault Victimization Among College-Age

Females, 19952013
ANGELES UNIVERSITY FOUNDATION
COLLEGE OF CRIMINAL JUSTICE EDUCATION PAGE
209

Sylvia Walby And Jonathan Allen (March 2004). Home

Office Research Study 276 Domestic Violence, Sexual

Assault And Stalking: Findings From The British Crime

Survey.

Synovate (Sept. 2003). Federal Trade Commission

Identity Theft Survey Report.

Tammy L. Anderson. Property Crime.

Tjaden, P., & N. Thoennes. (2000) The Role Of

Stalking In Domestic Violence Crime Reports Generated

By The Colorado Springs Police Department. Violence

And Victims, 15(4): 42741.

Truman, J.L., & M. Planty. (2012) Criminal

Victimization, 2011. Bureau Of Justice Statistics

Bulletin. Washington, Dc: Office Of Justice Programs.

Van Kesteren, J., & J. Van Dijk. (2012) Key

Victimological Findings From The International Crime

Victims Survey. In Shoham, S.G., P. Knepper, & M.


ANGELES UNIVERSITY FOUNDATION
COLLEGE OF CRIMINAL JUSTICE EDUCATION PAGE
210

Kett, (Eds.), International Handbook Of Victimology.

Boca Raton, Fl: Crc Press. Pp. 151-180.

Vyacheslav Alekseevich Tulyakov (2004) Business

Victimization And Organized Crime.

Warnken, H. (2012) A Complex And Compassionate

Response: The Role Of Victim/ Witness Assistance

Centers In Responding To Violence Against Women In

California, Chief Justice Earl Warren Institute

Washington, P.A. (1999) Second Assault Of Male

Survivors Of Sexual Violence. Journal Of

Interpersonal Violence, 14(7): 713-730.

Widom, C.S., S.J. Czaja & M.A. Dutton. (2008)

Childhood Victimization And Lifetime

Revictimization. Child Abuse Negl., 32(8): 785796.

Wilcox, P. (2010). Victimization, Theories Of. In B.

Fisher, & S. Lab (Eds.), Encyclopedia Of Victimology

And Crime Prevention. (Pp. 978-986). Thousand Oaks:


ANGELES UNIVERSITY FOUNDATION
COLLEGE OF CRIMINAL JUSTICE EDUCATION PAGE
211

Sage Publications, Inc. Doi:

10.4135/9781412979993.N334

B. INTERNET SOURCES

American Bar Association (2015). Domestic Violence

Statistics. Retrieved September 25, 2015 From

Http://Www.Americanbar.Org/Groups/Domestic_Violence/R

esources/Statistics.Html

Andrew Weissmann Et. Al. (June 22, 2015). Identity

Theft. Retrieved September 19, 2015, From

Http://Www.Justice.Gov/Criminal-Fraud/Identity-

Theft/Identity-Theft-And-Identity-Fraud

Australianbureauofstatistics (Feb 17 2015). MALICIOUS

PROPERTY DAMAGE. Retrieved Sept 25 2015 From


ANGELES UNIVERSITY FOUNDATION
COLLEGE OF CRIMINAL JUSTICE EDUCATION PAGE
212

Http://Www.Abs.Gov.Au/Ausstats/Abs@.Nsf/Lookup/By

%20Subject/4530.0~2013-14~Main%20Features~Malicious

%20property%20damage~27

Blake Taylor (2006). Poverty And Crime. Retrieved

September 16, 2015, From

Http://Economic.Fundamentalfinance.Com/Povertycrime.P

hp

Bureau Of Justice Statistics (2014). Location.

Retrieved March 17 2015 From

Http://Www.Bjs.Gov/Index.Cfm?Ty=Tp&Tid=44

Californians For Safety And Justice, (2013) Available

At:Http://Libcloud.S3.Amazonaws.Com/211/72/D/228/2/Vi

ctimsreport_07_16_13.Pdf.

Chad Posick And Michael Singleton (May 13, 2014). Why

Crimes Arent Reported: The Role Of Emotional

Distress And Perceptions Of Police Response.

Retrieved Sept.17, 2015 From

Http://Journalistsresource.Org/Studies/Government/Cri
ANGELES UNIVERSITY FOUNDATION
COLLEGE OF CRIMINAL JUSTICE EDUCATION PAGE
213

minal-Justice/Crime-Unreporting-Emotional-Distress-

Police-Response

Crime In The United States 2004. Hate Crime.

Retrieved Sept 25 2015 From

Https://Www2.Fbi.Gov/Ucr/Cius_04/Offenses_Reported/Ha

te_Crime/

Crime In The United States. Motor Vehicle Theft.

Retrieved September 27, 2015, From

Https://Www.Fbi.Gov/About-Us/Cjis/Ucr/Crime-In-The-

U.S/2010/Crime-In-The-U.S.-2010/Property-

Crime/Mvtheftmain

Devin Kowalczyk (2015). Descriptive Research Design:

Definition, Examples & Types. Retrieved March 09,

2015, From Http:// Study.Com /Academy /Lesson

/Descriptive-Reseracg-Design-Definition-Examples-

Types.Html.

Gregory M. Herek, Et Al. Hate Crime Victimization

Among Lesbian, Gay, And Bisexual Adults Prevalence,


ANGELES UNIVERSITY FOUNDATION
COLLEGE OF CRIMINAL JUSTICE EDUCATION PAGE
214

Psychological Correlates, And Methodological Issues.

Retrieved March 17 2015, From

Http://Jiv.Sagepub.Com/Content/12/2/195.Short?

Rss=1&Ssource=Mfc

Hate Crimes Statistics (2009). Victims. Retrieved

Sept. 25, 2015 From

Https://Www2.Fbi.Gov/Ucr/Hc2009/Victims.Html

Hope Hutchins And Maire Sinha (2013). Section 3:

Impact Of Violence Against Women. Retrieved September

25, 2015 From Http://Www.Statcan.Gc.Ca/Pub/85-002

X/2013001/Article/11766/11766-3-Eng.Htm

Janet Reno, Et Al. Breaking The Cycle Of Violence:

Recommendations To Improve The Criminal Justice

Response To Child Victims And Witnesses. Retrieved

March 17 2015 From

Http://Www.Ovc.Gov/Publications/Factshts/Monograph.Ht

Jeffrey M. Jones (November 5, 2014). About One In

Four U.S. Households Victimized By Crime. Retrieved


ANGELES UNIVERSITY FOUNDATION
COLLEGE OF CRIMINAL JUSTICE EDUCATION PAGE
215

September 25, 2015 From

Http://Www.Gallup.Com/Poll/179174/One-Four-

Households-Victimized-Crime.Aspx

Joshua D. Freilich And Steven M. Chermak. The Problem

Of Hate Crimes. Retreived September 20, 2015 From

Http://Www.Popcenter.Org/Problems/Hate_Crimes/

June C. Paul (Jan. 16, 2015). School-Related

Victimization Across Subgroups Of Transgender

Individuals: Implications For Psychological Wellbeing

And Educational Attainment. Retrieved Sept. 20, 2015,

From

Https://Sswr.Confex.Com/Sswr/2015/Webprogram/Paper225

43.Html

Louis M. Dekmar (April 2010). Handling Citizen

Complaints Through Proactive Methodology. Retrieved

September 25, 2015, From

Http://Www.Policechiefmagazine.Org/Magazine/Index.Cfm

Fuseaction=Display_Arch&Article_Id=2052&Issue_Id=4201

0
ANGELES UNIVERSITY FOUNDATION
COLLEGE OF CRIMINAL JUSTICE EDUCATION PAGE
216

Marilyn Manson. Victimized Quotes. Retrieved

September 27, 2015 from

http://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/keywords/victimized

.html

Mary Jo Nolin, Et Al (October 1995) Student

Victimization At School. Retrieved March 17 2015,

From

Https://Www2.Ed.Gov/Offices/Osdfs/Actguid/Finding1.Ht

m.

Meagan Meuchel Wilson.( February 20, 2014). Hate

Crime Victimization, 20042012 - Statistical Tables.

Retrieved Sept 25 2015, From

Http://Www.Bjs.Gov/Index.Cfm?Ty=Pbdetail&Iid=4883

Min Xie And David Mcdowall (September 24, 2014).

Impact Of Victimization On Residential Mobility:

Explaining Racial And Ethnic Patterns Using The

National Crime Victimization Survey. Retrieved Sept.

25, 2015, From


ANGELES UNIVERSITY FOUNDATION
COLLEGE OF CRIMINAL JUSTICE EDUCATION PAGE
217

Http://Onlinelibrary.Wiley.Com/Doi/10.1111/1745-

9125.12048/Abstract

National Archive Of Criminal Justice Data (2010).

National Crime Victimization Survey Resource Guide.

Retrieved March 17, 2015, From

Http://Www.Icpsr.Umich.Edu/Icpsrweb/Nacjd/Ncvs/

National Center For Biotechnology Information. Youth

Violence: A Report Of The Surgeon General. Retrieved

March 17 2015 From

Http://Www.Ncbi.Nlm.Nih.Gov/Books/Nbk44301/

National Center For Education Statistics. Retrieved

March 17 2015 From

Http://Nces.Ed.Gov/Fastfacts/Display.Asp?Id=49

National Center For Victims Of Crime (2012). The

Trauma Of Victimization. Retrieved March 17 2015 From

Http://Www.Victimsofcrime.Org/Help-For-Crime-

Victims/Get-Help-Bulletins-For-Crime-Victims/Trauma-

Of-Victimization
ANGELES UNIVERSITY FOUNDATION
COLLEGE OF CRIMINAL JUSTICE EDUCATION PAGE
218

National Center For Victims Of Crime. (2012).

Statistics On Perpetrators Of Child Sexual Abuse.

Retrieved Sept 25. 2015 From

Http://Www.Victimsofcrime.Org/Media/Reporting-On-

Child-Sexual-Abuse/Statistics-On-Perpetrators-Of-Csa

National Institute Of Justice, October 26, 2010.

Victims And Perpetrators. Retrieved March 17, 2015

From Http://Www.Nij.Gov/Topics/Crime/Rape-Sexual-

Violence/Pages/Victims-Perpetrators.Aspx

Patsy A. Klaus (Sept. 2002) Crime And Nations

Households, 2000. Retrieved Sept. 20 2015 From

Http://Www.Bjs.Gov/Content/Pub/Ascii/Cnh00.Txt

Rape Abuse & Incest National Network, The Offenders.

Retrieved Sept.19,2015 From Https://Rainn.Org/Get-

Information/Statistics/Sexual-Assault-Offenders

Rape Abuse & Incest National Network. How Often Does

Sexual Assault Occur?. Retrieved March 17 2015 From


ANGELES UNIVERSITY FOUNDATION
COLLEGE OF CRIMINAL JUSTICE EDUCATION PAGE
219

Https://Rainn.Org/Get-

Information/Statistics/Frequency-Of-Sexual-Assault

Ross Goodman. 7 Most Common Criminal Offenses In The

U.S.. Retrieved Sept.21 2015 From

Http://Goodmanlawgroup.Com/Criminal-Defense-Blog/7-

Most-Common-Criminal-Offenses-In-The-U-S/

Samuel Perreault And Shannon Brennan (2009).

Criminal Victimization In Canada, 2009. Retrieved

March 17 2015, From Http://Www.Statcan.Gc.Ca/Pub/85-

002-X/2010002/Article/11340-Eng.Htm

Siliconebutton (October 17, 2011). The Wedding Cake

Model Theory Of Criminal Justice. Retrieved March 16,

2015 From

Http://Siliconebutton.Blogspot.Com/2011/10/Wedding-

Cake-Model-Theory-Of-Criminal.Html

Stateofgraffititaskforce. How Much Is Being Spent On

Graffiti Removal. Retrieved Sept 25 2015 From

Http://Www.Goodbyegraffiti.Wa.Gov.Au/Schools/Faq-

Students/How-Much-Is-Being-Spent-On-Graffiti-Removal
ANGELES UNIVERSITY FOUNDATION
COLLEGE OF CRIMINAL JUSTICE EDUCATION PAGE
220

Susan Geason And Paul Wilson (September 1990)

Preventing Graffiti And Vandalism. Retrieved Sept 25

2015 From Http://Www.Aic.Gov.Au/Publications/Previous

%20series/Crimprev/1-11/Graffiti.Html

The Daily. Nov. 24, 2005. General Society Survey:

Criminal Victimization. Retrieved Sept. 20 2015 From

Http://Www.Statcan.Gc.Ca/Daily-

Quotidien/051124/Dq051124b-Eng.Htm
ANGELES UNIVERSITY FOUNDATION
COLLEGE OF CRIMINAL JUSTICE EDUCATION PAGE
221

Appendices

APPENDIX A

Angeles University Foundation


College of Criminal Justice Education
Angeles City

August 08, 2015

Dear Respondents,

Greetings!

The undersigned are students of the above stated


university taking up B.S in Criminology are presently
conducting a study entitled Crime Victimization
Survey in Angeles City as a final requirement in the
subject Criminological Research and Statistics.

In this view, the researchers are humbly


requesting for your cooperation and support in
answering our questionnaire. Rest assured that any
data gathered as a result of the study will be kept
confidential.

Thank you!

Researchers:
ANGELES UNIVERSITY FOUNDATION
COLLEGE OF CRIMINAL JUSTICE EDUCATION PAGE
222

Ma. Eula Lobo Torres

Sal-john Dominguez Angeluz Dizon Sotto

Sharmaine Guinto Pineda Jhaslee Hann Anayan Sotto

Recommended By: Approved By:

Dr. Rhem Rick N. Corpuz Dr. Lucia M. Hipolito

Adviser Dean
APPENDIX B

-RESEARCH QUESTIONNAIRE-

The following questions e. None of the above


are adopted from the
National Crime Mobility
Victimization Survey. a. Student
b. Professional
Direction: Encircle your c. Others, specify ____
answer.
Business Operation
How may the profile of the a. Private Business
respondents be described b. Commercial Business
in terms of: c. Home Business
d. None
Age Gender e. Others, specify ___
a. 18-25 a. Male
b. 26-35 b. Female Employment
c. 36-45 a. Employed
d. 46-55 b. Unemployed
e. 55 above c. Sometimes Employed
d. Others, specify _____________
Civil Status Family Type
a. Single a.Living Together
b. Married b.Solo Parent How may the characteristics of
c.Separated c.Broken Family victimization in Angeles City be
d. Common Law described in terms of:
e. Widow/Widower
ITEM STOLEN
Educational Attainment 1. Im going to read some
examples that will give you an
a. Elementary idea of the kinds of crimes this
b. High School study covers.
c. Vocational School As I go through them, tell
d. College me if any of these
ANGELES UNIVERSITY FOUNDATION
COLLEGE OF CRIMINAL JUSTICE EDUCATION PAGE
223

happened to you in the forcing a door or window,


last 6 months that is pushing past someone,
since ___________ ________ jimmying a lock, cutting a
screen, or entering
20__.
through an open door or
Was something belonging to
window?
YOU stolen, such as b. Has anyone illegally
a. Things that you carry, gotten in or tried to get
like luggage, a wallet, into a garage, shed or
purse, briefcase, book storage room?
OR
b. Clothing, jewelry, or c. Illegally gotten in or
cellphone tried to get into a hotel
c. Bicycle or sports or motel room or vacation
equipment home where you were
d. Things in your home staying?
like a TV, stereo, or
Briefly discribe incident(s)
tools __________________________
e. Things outside your __________________________
home such as a garden
hose or lawn furniture Did any incidents of this
type happens to you?
f. Things belonging to a. Yes What Happened?
children in the Describe above
household b. No
g. Things from a vehicle,
How many times? ________
such as a package,
groceries, camera, or MOTOR VEHICLE THEFT
CDs 1. What was the TOTAL
OR number of cars, vans,
h. Did anyone ATTEMPT to trucks, motorcycles, or
steal anything other motor vehicles owned
belonging to you? by you or any other member
of this household during
Briefly describe incident(s) the last 6 months? Include
__________________________ those you no longer own.
_____________________ a. None
b. 1
Did any incidents of this c. 2
type happens to you? d. 3
a. Yes What Happened? e. 4 or more
Describe above
b. No 2. During the last 6 months were
the vehicle was-
How many times? ______ a. Stolen or used without
permission
BREAKING AND ENTERING b. Did anyone steal any
1. has anyone parts such as tire, car
a. Broken in or ATTEMPTED stereo, hubcap, or battery
to break into your home by
ANGELES UNIVERSITY FOUNDATION
COLLEGE OF CRIMINAL JUSTICE EDUCATION PAGE
224

c. Did anyone steal any Briefly describe incident(s)


gas form __________________________
d. Did anyone attempt to __________________________
steal any vehicle or parts Did any incidents of this
attached to it type happens to you?
a. Yes What happened?
Briefly describe incident(s) Describe above
________________________________ b. No
________________________________
Did any incident of this type How many times? _______
happens to you?
a. Yes What happened? INSTRUMENT USED
Describe above 1. (Other than any incidents
b. No already mentioned) has
anyone attacked or
How many times? ________ threatened you in any of
these way and what kind of
AREA WHERE CRIME WAS COMMITTED instruments being used?
1. (Other than any incidents a. a gun or knife
already mentioned,) since b. a baseball bat, frying
__________ _______, 20 ____. pan, scissors, or stick
Were you attacked or threatened c. a rock or bottle
OR did you have something stolen d. other instruments that
from you - can be used as a weapon;
specify _________
a. At home including the
porch, or yard SEXUAL OFFENSE
b. At or near a friends, Incidents involving forced
relatives, or neighbors or unwanted sexual acts
home are often difficult to
c. At work or school talk about. (Other than
d. In places such as a any incidents already
storage shed or laundry mentioned,) have you been
room, a shopping mall, forced or coerced to
restaurant, bank, or engage in unwanted sexual
airport activity by
e. While riding in any a. Someone you did not
vehicle know before
f. On the street or in a b. A casual acquaintance
parking lot OR
g. At such places as a c. Someone you know well?
party, theater, gym,
picnic area, bowling Briefly describe incident(s)
lanes, or while fishing or ________________________________
hunting - ________________________________
OR
h. Did anyone ATTEMPT to Did any incidents of this type
attack or ATTEMPT to steal happens to you?
anything belonging to you a. Yes What happened?
from any of these Describe above
places? b. No
ANGELES UNIVERSITY FOUNDATION
COLLEGE OF CRIMINAL JUSTICE EDUCATION PAGE
225

How many times? _______ Did any incidents of these


type happens to you?
a. Yes What happened?
REPORTAGE TO THE POLICE Describe above
1. During the last 6 months, b. No
(other than any incidents
already mentioned,) did you call How many times? _______
the police to report something
that happened to YOU which you IDENTITY THEFT
thought was a crime? 1. Since __________ ____,
20 _____, have you or
a. Yes What happened? anyone in your household
Describe below discovered that someone
b. No a. Used or attempted to
use any existing credit
Briefly describe incident(s) cards or credit cards
________________________________ number without permission
________________________________ to place charges on an
account?
How many times? ________ a. Yes b. No c. Dont Know

THREAT/ATTACK WHILE BEING ROBBED b. Used or attempted to


1. (Other than any incidents use any existing accounts
already mentioned,) has anyone other than a credit card
attacked or threatened you in account for example, a
any of these ways (include wireless telephone
telephone threat) account, bank account or
a. With any weapon, for debit/check cards
instance, a gun or knife without the account
b. With anything like a holders permission to run
baseball bat, frying pan, up charges or to take
scissors, or stick money from accounts?
c. By something thrown, a. Yes b. No c. Dont Know
such as a rock or bottle
d. Include any grabbing, c. Used or attempted to
punching, or choking, use personal information
e. Any rape, attempted without permission to
rape or other type of obtain NEW credit cards or
sexual attack loans, run up debts, open
f. Any face to face other accounts, or
threats otherwise commit theft,
OR fraud, or some other
g. Any attack or threat or crime?
use of force by anyone at a. Yes b. No c. Dont Know
all? Please mention it
even if you are not 2. Was the misuse of (the
certain it was a crime credit card account(s)/any
existing account(s) other than
Briefly describe incident(s) credit cards/personal
__________________________ information or new account(s))
__________________________ one episode or more than one
episode of identity theft?
ANGELES UNIVERSITY FOUNDATION
COLLEGE OF CRIMINAL JUSTICE EDUCATION PAGE
226

a. One b. More than one c. Dont f. Furniture, other


Know household goods
g. Clothing
3. Did these episodes of h. Animal (pet, livestock,
identity theft occur separately etc.)
or at the same time? i. Other Specify
a. Separately b. At the same _____________
time c. Dont Know
3. What kind of damage was
4. Which episode of identity done in this/these act(s)
theft was most recently of vandalism? Anything
discovered? else?
a. Existing credit cards a. Broken glass: window,
b. Existing accounts other windshield, glass in door,
than a credit card mirror
c. Personal information to b. Defaced: marred,
obtain new accounts graffiti, dirtied
d. Dont know c. Burned: use of fire,
heat or explosives
VANDALISM d. Drove into or ran over
1. NowId like to ask about ALL with vehicle
acts of vandalism that may have e. Other breaking or
been committed during the last 6 tearing
months against YOUR household. f. Injured or killed
Vandalism is the deliberate, animals
intentional damage to or g. Other
destruction of household Specify_____________
property. Examples are breaking
windows, slashing tires, and 4. What was the total
painting graffiti on amount of the damage
walls. caused by this/these
Since __________ ______, 20 act(s) of vandalism during
____, has anyone intentionally the last 6 months? (Use
damaged or destroyed property repair costs if the
owned by you or someone else in property was repaired.)
your household? a. P ___________
a. Yes b. No b. Dont know
2. What kind of property c. No cost
was damaged or destroyed
in this/these act(s) of 5. Was the damage under P4,500
vandalism? Anything else? or P4,500 or more? (INCLUDE
total amount for all incidents
a. Motor vehicle of vandalism during the last 6
(including parts) months.)
b. Bicycle (including a. Under P4,500
parts) b. P4,500 or more
c. Mailbox c. Dont know
d. House
window/screen/door HATE CRIMES
e. Yard or garden (trees, 1. Hate crimes or crimes of
shrubs, fence, etc.) prejudice or bigotry occur when
(an offender/offenders)
ANGELES UNIVERSITY FOUNDATION
COLLEGE OF CRIMINAL JUSTICE EDUCATION PAGE
227

target(s) people because of one (for example, did the


or more of their characteristics offender(s) confess a
or religious beliefs. motive, or did the police
find books, journals, or
Do you have any reason to pictures that indicated
suspect the vandalism just the offender(s) (was/were)
discussed was a hate crime or prejudiced against people
crime prejudice or bigotry? with certain
a. Yes characteristics or
b. No religious beliefs)?
c. Dont Know a. Yes b. No c. Dont Know

2. Did the offender(s) say 3.4. Do you know if the


something, write anything, or offender(s)(has/have)
leave anything behind at the committed similar hate
crime scene that would crimes or crimes of
suggest you were targeted prejudice or bigotry in
because of your characteristics the past?
or religious beliefs? a. Yes b. No c. Dont Know
a. Yes
b. No 3.5. Did the vandalism
c. Dont Know occur on or near a
holiday, event, location,
3. The next questions ask gathering place, or
about the evidence you have that building commonly
makes you suspect this vandalism associated with a specific
was a hate crime or a group (for example, at the
crime of prejudice or bigotry. Gay Pride March or at
As I read the following asynagogue, Korean church,
questions, tell me if any of or gay bar)
the following happened: a. Yes b. No c. Dont Know
3.1. Did the offender(s)
make fun of you, make negative 3.6. Have other hate
comments, use slang, hurtful crimes or crimes of
words, or abusive language? prejudice or bigotry
a. Yes b. No c. Dont Know happened to you or in your
area/Neighborhood where
3.2. Were any hate people have been targeted?
symbols present at the a. Yes b. No c. Dont Know
crime scene to indicate
the offender(s) targeted 3.7. Do your feelings,
you for a particular instincts, or perception lead
reason (for example, a you to suspect this vandalism
swastika, graffiti on the was a hate crime or crime of
walls of a temple, a prejudice or bigotry, but you do
burning cross,or written not have enough evidence to know
words)? for sure?
a. Yes b. No c. Dont Know a. Yes b. No c. Dont Know

3.3. Did a police How may the details of


investigation confirm the victimization of the residence
offender(s) targeted you
ANGELES UNIVERSITY FOUNDATION
COLLEGE OF CRIMINAL JUSTICE EDUCATION PAGE
228

of Angeles City be described in


terms of: 2. Two perpetrators only

UNWANTED CONTACTS/HARASSING Did these two people act


BEHAVIOR alone or together as a
1.Unwanted contacts / Harassing team?
behavior a. alone b. Together
Now, I would like to ask to you c. dont know
some questioned about any
unwanted contacts or harassing 3. Three or more
behavior you may have perpetrators
experienced that frightened,
concerned, angered, or annoyed Did all of these people
you? act together as a team or
group?
a. Making unwanted phone a. Yes b. No
calls to you or leaving c. Dont know
messages
b. Sending unsolicited or Please described the
unwanted letters, e-mails, general nature of the
or other forms of written group?
correspondence or a. Co workers
Communication b. Members of Gang
c. Following you or c. Fraternity
copying on you d. Sorority
d. Waiting outside or e. other specify______
inside places for you such
as your home, school, RELATIONSHIP WITH THE
workplace, or recreation PERPETRATOR
place 1. Is this person male or
e. Showing up at places female?
where you were even though a. Male b. Female
he or she had no business
being there 2. What was the
f. Leaving unwanted items, relationship of the person
presents or flowers who did (this / these
g. Posting information or things) to you?
spreading rumors about you a. Spouse
on the Internet. b. Ex spouse
c. Parents or Step parents
d. Own child or Step child
e. Brother / Sister
NUMBER OF PERPETRATORS f. other relative specify
1. Single or multiple ________
perpetrators g. Boyfriend / Girlfriend
How many different people h. Ex Boyfriend / Girlfriend
have done any of these i. Friend
things to you in the last j. Roommate
12 months? k. Schoolmate
a. Number of people, l. Neighbor
specify _____ m. Customer
b. I dont know n. Student
ANGELES UNIVERSITY FOUNDATION
COLLEGE OF CRIMINAL JUSTICE EDUCATION PAGE
229

o. Co worker
RESPONSE OF THE VICTIM
3. Did this person ever live 1. How did the behavior of
with you? this person / these
a. Yes b. No persons make you feel when
it first started anything
ONSET DURATION AND RESISTANCE else?
1. How long ago that the crime a. Anxious / Concerned/
has been committed to you and Nervous
what particular crime? b. Annoyed / Angry/ Mad
c. Frightened/ Afraid/
a. Days/Incident, specify Panicked
____________ d. Depressed/ Hopeless/
b. Weeks/Incident, specify Sad
___________ e. Helpless/ Frustrated/
c. Months/Incident, specify Powerless
___________ f. Sick/ Stressed
d. Years/Incident, specify g. Suicidal Attempt
____________
CRIMINAL JUSTICE AND OTHER
OTHER CRIMES AND INJURIES RESPONSE
1. During the series of unwanted 1. Did you or someone else
contacts or behavior, did this call or contact the law
person do any of the following: enforcement agency other
1.1 Illegally enter or than police to report any
attempt to enter your of these unwanted contacts
house / apartment? or behavior?
a. Yes b. No a. Yes, specify __________
b. No

1.2. Illegally enter or 2. Who reported the


attempt to enter your car? unwanted contacts or
a. Yes b. No behavior to law
enforcement agency other
1.3 Damage or destroy than police?
property belonging to you? a. Victim
a. Yes b. No b. Friend / Neighbor
c. Family / Relatives
2. What were the physical d. Doctor / Nurse
injuries you suffered? e. Other professionals
a. none f. School Faculty
b. Bullet wounds g. Security guard
c. Stab wounds h. Others, specify
d. Broken bones / _________
fractured 3. When the law enforcement
e. Internal injuries agencies other than police were
f. Unconscious contacted what did they do next?
g. Bruises, black eye, a. Took a report
cuts, scratches, swelling, b. Talked to or warned
chipped teeth perpetrator
h. Others, specify c. Arrested the perpetrator and
________ get into their custody
ANGELES UNIVERSITY FOUNDATION
COLLEGE OF CRIMINAL JUSTICE EDUCATION PAGE
230

d. Told respondent to get a stay j. Others, specify _____


away order
e. Referred respondent to a PLACE
court or prosecutor to a court 1. What were the most places
or prosecutor office that the crimes were committed?
f. Ask for more information a. Public market
b. Park
How may the victimization rate c. School
of the residence in Angeles d. Private House
City be described in terms of: e. Subdivision
f. Dark Places
OFFENSES g. Public Vehicles
1. What were the most crimes h. Private Vehicles
offense commited? i. Others, specify ____________
a. Theft
b. Robbery TIME
c. Murder 1.What were the most approximate
d. Homicide time that the crimes were
e. Parricide committed?
f. Infanticide a. Early morning, 12:00am 6:00am
b. Morning , 6:00am 12:00am
g. Abortion c. Afternoon, 12:00pm 6:00pm
h. Rape d. Evening, 6:00pm 12:00pm
i. Carnapping
APPENDIX C
SAMPLING METHOD

In

order to get the

recommended sampling size for each barangay, the

researchers used the Raosoft software.


APPENDIX D
DOCUMENTATION
These are some photos taken during the actual

answering of the questionnaires given to them.

CURRICULUM VITAE
MA. EULA LOBO TORRES
#3909 3rd Street Balibago
Angeles City, Pampanga
09758518675
TGISeula_wun@yahoo.com

SCHOLASTIC RECORDS

TERTIARY : Bachelor of Science in Criminology


Angeles University Foundation
Angeles City, Philippines
June 2012 Present

SECONDARY : Jocson College Incorporated


1st St. Balibago Angeles City, Pampanga
2008 2012

PRIMARY : Alberto G. Pabalan Elementary School


6th St. Balibago Angeles City, Pampanga
2002 2008

PERSONAL BACKGROUND

Age : 20 years old


Date of Birth : June 29, 1995
Place of Birth : Mabalacat City
Sex : Female
Civil Status : Single
Height : 55
Weight : 55kgs.
Religion : Roman Catholic
Credentials/ Seminars/ Awards Date
Resource Speaker Anti-Drug Campaign September 17,
2015
Resource Speaker Traffic Safety October 23,
Management 2014
Seminar on Weekly Lambat Sibat Crime September 28,
Assessment with Multi-sectoral Groups 2015
(SOP LAMBAT SIBAT)
Completed the Reserve Officers Training March 2013
Corps (ROTC) component of the National
Service Training Program (NSTP)
Loyalty Award, Reserve Officers Training March 2014
Corps (ROTC) component of the National
Service Training Program
Duty Award, Reserve Officers Training March 2014
Corps (ROTC) component of the National
Service Training Program (NSTP)
Graduate of the Summer Cadre Training May 2013
Philippine Air Force (PAF)
Corps Commander of AUF-ROTC March 2014
Seminar on Academic Excellence Lecture September 18,
Series in the Judiciary 2015
Member of Junior Law Enforcement 2012-2014
Association (JLEA)
Champion Basketball Girls Criminology September 6,
Sportsfest 2014
Pre-employment and Essentials Seminar September 24,
2015
Seminar on Police Community Relations March 27, 2015
Bridging Gap between the Philippine
National Police and the Community
Seminar on Public Information Enhancing July 30, 2015
Public Information Skills

Member Liturgical Artists Ministry 2014


CURRICULUM VITAE

SAL-JOHN A. DOMINGUEZ
Ascomo Guagua Pampanga
09057510549
Sal_01john@yahoo.com

SCHOLASTIC RECORDS

TERTIARY : Bachelor of Science in Criminology


Angeles University Foundation
Angeles City, Philippines
June 2012 Present

SECONDARY : Pulungmasle Elementary School


Guagua, Pampanga
2007 2011

PRIMARY : Pulungmasle High School


Guagua, Pampanga
2000 2006

PERSONAL BACKGROUND

Age : 21 years old


Date of Birth : July 21, 1994
Place of Birth : Diosdado Macapagal, Sta. Rita
Hospital
Sex : Male
Civil Status : Single
Height : 56
Weight : 73kgs.
Religion : Roman Catholic
Credentials/ Seminars/ Awards Date
Athlete Scholar, Baseball team

Member of Junior Philippine Institute of


Accountants

Member of Youth for Christ Organization

Member of Member of Junior Law


Enforcement Association

Completed the Reserve Officers Training


Corps ( ROTC) Component of the National
Service Training Program ( NSTP)

Resource Speaker on Anti-Drug Campaign September 02,


2015
Police Community Relations seminar March 27,
Bridging Gap between the Philippine 2015.
National Police and the Community.

Public Information seminar Enhancing July 30, 2015


Public Information Skills

Coping with the developing landscape in September 18,


Civil Law seminar. 2015

Philippine National Games 2011 2012


and
2012 2013
Private Schools Athletic Association 2011 2012
Regional Collegiate Games Champion and 2012
2013 and 1st
runner up 2013
2014

Private Schools Athletic Association 2011 2012


National Collegiate Games 2nd runner up and 1st runner
up 2012
2013

CURRICULUM VITAE

WILFREDO JANIUS EVANS PAULO


#7284 Araw Malansik St. Barangay Sta.
Teresita
Angeles City, Pampanga
09062595042
Paulo_leb10@yahoo.com

SCHOLASTIC RECORDS

TERTIARY : Bachelor of Science in Criminology


Angeles University Foundation
Angeles City, Philippines
June 2012 Present

SECONDARY : New Era University


Brgy.Dela Paz City of San Fernando
Pampang
2007 2011

PRIMARY : Sto.Domingo Elementary School


Angeles City, Philippines
2003 2007

PERSONAL BACKGROUND

Age : 19 years old


Date of Birth : January 31, 1995
Place of Birth : Angeles City
Sex : Male
Civil Status : Single
Height : 58
Weight : 60kgs.
Religion : Born-Again
Credentials/ Seminars/ Awards Date
Member of Junior Law Enforcement September 17,
Association 2015

Seminar on Effective Investigative November 26,


Police Writing Towards a Responsible and 2012
Competent Police Service
First Aid Technique August 24,
2012
January 28,
Seminar on Eye spy detectives Paragas 2012
Security & Investigation Agency Wisemans
Books Trading Incorporated
Reserve Officers Training Corps (ROTC) March 30, 2012
Component of the National Service Training
Program (NSTP)
CURRICULUM VITAE

SHARMAINE GUINTO PINEDA


09999873321
Mabalacat City, Pampanga
Xiarmeighn14@yahoo.com

SCHOLASTIC RECORDS

TERTIARY : Bachelor of Science in Criminology


Angeles University Foundation
Angeles City, Philippines
June 2012 Present

SECONDARY : Doa Asuncion Lee Integrated School


Brgy. Tabun Xevera Mabalacat City,
Pampanga
2008 2012

PRIMARY : Alasas Elementary School


Brgy. Alasas, San Isidro San Fernando,
Pampanga.
2002 2008

PERSONAL BACKGROUND

Age : 19 years old


Date of Birth : May 14, 1996
Place of Birth : San Fernando, Pampanga
Sex : Female
Civil Status : Single
Height : 54
Weight : 59kgs.
Religion : Roman Catholic
Credentials/ Seminars/ Awards Date
Member of Junior Law Enforcement September 17,
Association 2015

Member of Youth for Christ Organization October 23,


2014
Completed the Reserve Officers Training
Corps (ROTC) component of the National
Service Training Program (NSTP)
Resource Speaker Anti-Drug Campaign September 21,
2015
Police Community Relations seminar March 27, 2015
"Bridging Gap between the Philippine
National Police and the Community

Public Information seminar Enhancing July 30, 2015


Public Information Skills
CURRICULUM VITAE

ANGELUZ DIZON SOTTO


#2730 LNW Pampang Road
Angeles City, Pampanga
09066423035
Angie_cute10@yahoo.com

SCHOLASTIC RECORDS

TERTIARY : Bachelor of Science in Criminology


Angeles University Foundation
Angeles City, Philippines
June 2012 Present

SECONDARY : Angeles City National High School


Brgy. Pampang Angeles City, Pampanga
2010 2012

Angeles City National Trade School


Angeles City Sunset
2008-2010

PRIMARY : Lourdes Northwest Elementary School


LNW Pampang Rd. Angeles City, Pampanga
2002 2008

PERSONAL BACKGROUND

Age : 19 years old


Date of Birth : September 21, 1996
Place of Birth : San Fernando, Pampanga
Sex : Female
Civil Status : Single
Height : 54
Weight : 50kgs.
Religion : Roman Catholic

Credentials/ Seminars/ Awards Date


Member of Junior Law Enforcement September 17,
Association 2015

Member of Liturgical Artists Ministry October 23,


2014
Completed the Reserve Officers 2013
Training Corps (ROTC) component of the
National Service Training Program (NSTP)
Police Community Relations seminar March 27,
"Bridging Gap between the Philippine 2015
National Police and the Community

Public Information seminar Enhancing July 30, 2015


Public Information Skills

Champion Basketball Girls Criminology September 6,


Sportsfest 2014

Dancer Cultural Dance Competition 2012-2013


CURRICULUM VITAE

JHASLEE HANN ANAYAN SOTTO

#2014 Flamingo St. Brgy. Ninoy Aquino Angeles City,


Pampanga
09355277666
Jhaslee_sotto@yahoo.com

SCHOLASTIC RECORDS

TERTIARY : Bachelor of Science in Criminology


Angeles University Foundation
Angeles City, Philippines
2012-2016

Bachelor of Science in Nursing


Angeles University Foundation
Angeles City, Philippines
June 2011-2012

SECONDARY : Angeles University Foundation


Integrated School
Broadway St. Brgy. Ninoy Aquino
Angeles City
2006-2009

PRIMARY : Nazarene Academy


Salapungan Angeles City, Pampanga
2002 2008
PERSONAL BACKGROUND

Age : 22 years old


Date of Birth : May 28, 1993
Place of Birth : Angeles City
Sex : Female
Civil Status : Single
Height : 53
Weight : 55kgs.
Religion : Roman Catholic
Credentials/ Seminars/ Awards Date
Former Scholar of Performing Arts 2007-2010
Rondalla Band

Member of Cathecist Group 2007-2010

Member of Youth for Christ Organization 2011-2012

Seminar Workshop on First Aid Technique August 24 2012

Resource Speaker Anti-Drug Campaign September 21,


2015
Police Community Relations seminar March 27, 2015
Bridging Gap between the Philippine
National Police and the Community
Public Information seminar Enhancing July 30, 2015
Public Information Skills
Coping with the developing landscape in September 18,
Civil Law seminar 2015
Member of Junior Law Enforcement 2012-2014
Association (JLEA)
Pre-Employment and Essentials Seminar September 24,
2015