Thesis Victimization Basis

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

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

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
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
ANGELUZ DIZON SOTTO
Type of Document: Thesis
Type of Publication: Unpublished
Accrediting Institution: Angeles University
Foundation
Funding Agency: None

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
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
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
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?
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.

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
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.
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
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
14
LIST OF FIGURE/S
Figure No. Figure Title Page
1 Research Paradigm 50
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

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,

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).
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

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

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

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

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

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.

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).

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).
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.
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

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

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

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.

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

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

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

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

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

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).

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

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

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

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).

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

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

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

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

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,

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

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

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
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
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?

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
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

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

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.

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

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.

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
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

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

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

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

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

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.
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
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
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
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

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.

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.

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
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
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

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-

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

Percent
Male 179 46.6 46.6

Female 205 53.4 100.0
Total 384 100.0
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

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
76
Widow/Widower 10 2.6 100.0

Total 384 100.0
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).

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

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
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

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

Percent
Elementary 19 4.9 4.9
High School 161 41.9 46.9
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
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

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

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
according to mobility. It can be seen on the table
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.

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
82

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
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.

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

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
84
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

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
86

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
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

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

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.
to Breaking and Entering

Percent
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
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

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).
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

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.
to Motor Vehicle Theft

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
93
victimization according to motor vehicle theft. It
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

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.
to Motor Vehicle Theft

95

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
96
victimization according to motor vehicle theft. It
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).
carnapping are 89 in number with a percentage of .02%

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

98

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
victimization according to area where crime was

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

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.
to Instrument Used

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
101
victimization according to instrument used. It can be
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,

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.
to Sexual Offense

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
103
victimization according to sexual offense. It can be
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).

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

105
crime might be lessen or if possible can prevent from
happening.
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

106
in reporting to the police, satisfaction with the
police, and take-away lessons (Posick & Singleton,
2014).
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

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.

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
108
Table 18. Characteristic of victimization according to
Threat/Attack while being robbed
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

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

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.
to identity theft

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
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

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

112
to the crime might be suppress or if possible prevent
from happening again.
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
victimization according to identity theft. It can be
were the majority answers no which indicates that

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.

114
to Identity theft

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
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

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

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.
to Identity theft

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
seen on the table that there are 384 respondents were
the majority answers dont know which indicates

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.
to Identity Theft
118

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
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

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.
to Identity theft

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
120
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).

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.
to Vandalism
122
Yes 49 12.8 12.8

No 335 87.2 100.0
Total 384 100.0
victimization according to vandalism. It can be seen
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

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.

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
124
to Vandalism
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,

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.

126

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
to Vandalism
127
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.

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.

129
to Vandalism

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
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
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

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.

to Vandalism

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
victimization according to vandalism according to the

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).
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

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.
to Hate crime

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
133
victimization according to hate crime. It can be seen
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,

134
specifically Angeles City is safe from hate crime,
and it is not a big problem in terms of crimes
committed in the community.
to Hate crime

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
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)

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.
136
to Hate Crime

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
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

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.
to Hate Crime
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
138
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

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.
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

140
discretionary of the police and other law enforcement
agencies on how to identify and solve the case.
to Hate Crime

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
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.

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.
to Hate Crime
142
according to hate crime. It can be seen on the table that

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.
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

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.

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
suspect vandalism as a form of hate crime committed

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).
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.

145
to Hate Crime

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

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.

Percent
Yes 3 .8 .8
No 240 62.5 63.3
Don't Know 141 36.7 100.0
Total 384 100.0
to Hate Crime
suspect vandalism as a hate crime based on their
feelings, instincts, or perception, the least of them
answered yes which indicates that their feelings,

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.
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

148
injuries, response of the victim, and criminal
justice and other response.

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
149
Table 39 presents the Details of victimization
according to unwanted contacts/harassing behavior. It
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

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

151
agencies or with the own safekeeping of the citizens
themselves.
Table 40. Details of victimization according to
Number of Perpetrator

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
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.
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

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.

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
154
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

155
sole discretionary of the police to identify the
relationship of the both perpetrators.

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
according to number of perpetrator. It can be
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.
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.
number of perpetrator
157

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
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

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.
Relationship with the perpetrator

159

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
according to Relationship with the perpetrator. It
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

160
cases reported among boys and 6% of cases reported
among girls.
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.

161

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
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

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

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.
Yes 36 9.4 9.4

No 348 90.6 100.0
Total 384 100.0
according to relationship with the perpetrator. It
respondents were the majority answered no which
indicates that they werent live with the

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.
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

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

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
according to onset duration and resistance. It can be
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,

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

167
community is under control by people with specified
duties and responsibilities.
Table 48. Details of victimization according to Other
crimes and injuries
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

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
Yes 15 3.9 3.9

No 369 96.1 100.0
Total 384 100.0
169
according to other crimes and injuries. It can be
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.
170
Other crimes and injuries
Yes 32 8.3 8.3

No 352 91.7 100.0
Total 384 100.0
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.

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.
Other crimes and injuries

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
172
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

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).
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

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.
Response of the victim

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
according to response of the victim. It can be seen
majority answered Anxious/concerned/nervous which

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

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.
Criminal Justice and Other Response

Percent
43 11.2 11.2
Yes, specify
No 341 88.8 100.0

Total 384 100.0
177
according to criminal justice and other response. It
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.
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.
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.
Criminal Justice and other response

179

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

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.
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

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.
Criminal Justice and other response

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
182
according to criminal justice and other response. It
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

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.
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

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
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.

186
Most of the time, there are no injured victims or
casualties; except for some arson cases.
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.
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

187
areas of the community, so that the chance of being
victimized will be lessen.
Table 57. Victimization rate according to Place

188

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
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

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.
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

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

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
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

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.

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.

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

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

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.

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

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.

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

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.

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

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
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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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
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.

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:

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

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
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,

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

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
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

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
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

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
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
221
Appendices
APPENDIX A

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:
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
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
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
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?
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)
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
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
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
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 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
Service Training Program
Duty Award, Reserve Officers Training March 2014
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

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
Height : 56
Weight : 73kgs.
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

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

#7284 Araw Malansik St. Barangay Sta.
Teresita
09062595042
Paulo_leb10@yahoo.com
SCHOLASTIC RECORDS

June 2012 Present
SECONDARY : New Era University

Brgy.Dela Paz City of San Fernando
Pampang
2007 2011
PRIMARY : Sto.Domingo Elementary School

2003 2007
PERSONAL BACKGROUND
Age : 19 years old

Date of Birth : January 31, 1995
Place of Birth : Angeles City
Sex : Male
Height : 58
Weight : 60kgs.
Religion : Born-Again
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

09999873321
Mabalacat City, Pampanga
Xiarmeighn14@yahoo.com
SCHOLASTIC RECORDS

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
Height : 54
Weight : 59kgs.
Association 2015
Member of Youth for Christ Organization October 23,

2014
Completed the Reserve Officers Training
2015
Police Community Relations seminar March 27, 2015
"Bridging Gap between the Philippine

CURRICULUM VITAE
ANGELUZ DIZON SOTTO

#2730 LNW Pampang Road
09066423035
Angie_cute10@yahoo.com
SCHOLASTIC RECORDS

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
Height : 54
Weight : 50kgs.

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

Champion Basketball Girls Criminology September 6,

Sportsfest 2014
Dancer Cultural Dance Competition 2012-2013

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

Pampanga
09355277666
Jhaslee_sotto@yahoo.com
SCHOLASTIC RECORDS

2012-2016
Bachelor of Science in Nursing

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
Height : 53
Weight : 55kgs.
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

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

Thesis Victimization Basis

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Thesis Victimization Basis

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

ANGELES UNIVERSITY FOUNDATION

COLLEGE OF CRIMINAL JUSTICE EDUCATION PAGE

CRIME VICTIMIZATION SURVEY IN ANGELES CITY

A Thesis Proposal Presented to

The Faculty of the College of Criminal Justice Education

Angeles University Foundation

Of the Requirements for the Degree

Bachelor of Science in Criminology

MA. EULA LOBO TORRES

SAL-JOHN ARCEO DOMINGUEZ

WILFREDO JANIUS EVANS PAULO

SHARMAINE GUINTO PINEDA

ANGELUZ DIZON SOTTO

JHASLEE HANN ANAYAN SOTTO

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

Theoretical/ Conceptual Framework . . . . . 27

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

DESIGN AND METHODOLOGY

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

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

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

CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

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

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

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

Funding Agency: None

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.

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

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:

2. How may the characteristics of victimization

in Angeles City be described in terms of:

b. Breaking and Entering

c. Motor vehicle theft

d. Area where crime was committed

g. Reportage to the police

h. Threat/Attack while being robbed

3. How may the details of victimization of the