ASG Law

Tag: Force

  • Consent is Key: Understanding Rape and Consensual Sex in Philippine Law

    The Importance of Proving Force or Intimidation in Rape Cases

    TLDR: This Supreme Court case emphasizes that in rape cases, the prosecution must prove beyond reasonable doubt that the sexual act was committed through force, violence, or intimidation. The absence of such proof, even if sexual intercourse occurred, can lead to acquittal, highlighting the importance of consent.

    G.R. No. 118946, October 16, 1997

    Introduction

    Imagine being accused of a crime you didn’t commit, facing imprisonment and social stigma. This nightmare scenario underscores the critical importance of due process and the burden of proof in criminal cases, particularly in sensitive matters like rape. In the Philippines, rape is defined not just by the act of sexual intercourse, but also by the presence of force, violence, or intimidation. The absence of these elements can mean the difference between conviction and acquittal.

    People of the Philippines v. Rico Jamlan Salem revolves around the question of whether a sexual encounter was consensual or an act of rape. The accused, Rico Salem, admitted to having sexual relations with the complainant, Mirasol Sabellano, but claimed it was a consensual act between sweethearts. The Supreme Court had to determine whether the prosecution successfully proved that the act was committed through force or intimidation, an essential element for a rape conviction.

    Legal Context

    The Revised Penal Code of the Philippines, specifically Article 335, defines rape and outlines the elements necessary for a conviction. Key to this definition is the requirement that the sexual act be committed through force, violence, or intimidation. Without these elements, the act, while potentially immoral, does not constitute rape under Philippine law.

    “Art. 335. When and how rape is committed. – Rape is committed by a man who shall have carnal knowledge of a woman under any of the following circumstances: 1. By using force or intimidation;…”

    Previous Supreme Court decisions have consistently emphasized the need for the prosecution to prove these elements beyond reasonable doubt. Given the private nature of the crime, the testimony of the complainant is often scrutinized with extreme caution, and the evidence must stand on its own merits, not on the weakness of the defense.

    Case Breakdown

    The story begins with Mirasol Sabellano being sent to a store near her home. According to her testimony, Rico Salem, whom she knew, accosted her and forced her to a grassy area where he raped her. She claimed he threatened her life if she shouted. Salem, on the other hand, testified that he and Sabellano were sweethearts and that their encounter was consensual.

    The case proceeded through the following steps:

    • The trial court convicted Salem of rape, relying heavily on Sabellano’s testimony.
    • Salem appealed, arguing that the prosecution failed to prove force or intimidation.
    • The Supreme Court reviewed the evidence, focusing on the credibility of the complainant’s testimony.

    The Supreme Court ultimately reversed the trial court’s decision, acquitting Salem. The Court found several inconsistencies and improbabilities in Sabellano’s account. For example, the Court noted that Sabellano claimed she was threatened, yet she was able to buy sugar at the store and did not attempt to seek help or shout for assistance. The Court stated:

    “Clearly, the so-called ‘threat’ or ‘intimidation’ was more fantasy than real. Rico did not even have a knife; he was unarmed…If she were indeed under threat or intimidation, she could have easily extricated herself from her predicament by seeking help from the store or from the neighbors…or by simply shouting for help.”

    The Court also questioned the lack of explanation for the abrasions on Sabellano’s body and gave weight to the testimony of a defense witness who claimed to have seen Sabellano and Salem laughing together after the alleged incident. The Court said:

    “In this case, several circumstances co-exist which clearly demonstrate and ineluctably persuade this Court that there was no rape on the alleged date, time and place, and that the charge of rape was but the contrivance of an afterthought rather than the truthful plaint for redress of an actual wrong.”

    Practical Implications

    This case serves as a reminder of the importance of proving all elements of a crime beyond reasonable doubt, especially in rape cases. It highlights the need for a thorough investigation and careful evaluation of evidence. The absence of clear evidence of force, violence, or intimidation can be fatal to a rape prosecution.

    For individuals, this case underscores the critical importance of consent in sexual encounters. Clear, unambiguous consent is essential to avoid potential legal repercussions. For prosecutors, the case emphasizes the need to present compelling evidence of force or intimidation to secure a conviction.

    Key Lessons

    • Burden of Proof: The prosecution must prove all elements of rape, including force or intimidation, beyond reasonable doubt.
    • Credibility of Testimony: The complainant’s testimony is subject to careful scrutiny, especially when it is the primary evidence.
    • Importance of Consent: Clear and unambiguous consent is crucial in any sexual encounter.

    Frequently Asked Questions

    Q: What constitutes “force” or “intimidation” in a rape case?

    A: Force involves physical violence or coercion, while intimidation involves threats or acts that create fear in the victim, compelling them to submit against their will.

    Q: What happens if the prosecution cannot prove force or intimidation?

    A: If the prosecution fails to prove these elements beyond reasonable doubt, the accused cannot be convicted of rape.

    Q: Is the complainant’s testimony enough to secure a conviction?

    A: While the complainant’s testimony is important, it must be credible and consistent with other evidence presented. It cannot be the sole basis for a conviction if it is doubtful or uncorroborated.

    Q: What is the “sweetheart defense”?

    A: The “sweetheart defense” is a claim by the accused that the sexual encounter was consensual because they were in a relationship with the complainant. This defense is carefully scrutinized by the courts.

    Q: What should I do if I am accused of rape?

    A: Seek legal counsel immediately. Do not make any statements to the police without consulting a lawyer.

    Q: What should I do if I am a victim of rape?

    A: Seek medical attention and report the incident to the police. Preserve any evidence and seek legal counsel to understand your rights and options.

    ASG Law specializes in criminal defense and cases involving sexual offenses. Contact us or email hello@asglawpartners.com to schedule a consultation.

  • Rape and Consent: Understanding Force, Intimidation, and Victim Testimony in Philippine Law

    The Importance of Consent: Rape Conviction Upheld Based on Victim’s Credible Testimony

    G.R. Nos. 116528-31, July 14, 1997

    Imagine the devastating impact of sexual assault, not just on the victim’s body but also on their mental and emotional well-being. Now, consider the added challenge of navigating the complexities of the legal system to seek justice. This is the reality for many rape survivors in the Philippines. The case of People of the Philippines vs. Marieto Adora sheds light on the crucial role of consent in rape cases, the admissibility of victim testimony, and the factors that courts consider when evaluating the credibility of a witness.

    In this case, Marieto Adora was convicted of four counts of rape based on the testimony of the victim, Cecilia Cotorno, who was also his niece-in-law. The central legal question revolved around whether the prosecution successfully proved that the sexual acts were committed without Cecilia’s consent, considering the defense’s arguments about inconsistencies in her testimony and alleged bias of the trial court.

    Legal Definition of Rape and the Element of Consent

    In the Philippines, rape is defined and penalized under Article 335 of the Revised Penal Code. The key element of rape is the lack of consent from the victim. This lack of consent can be manifested through the use of force, intimidation, or when the victim is deprived of reason or otherwise unconscious. The prosecution must prove beyond reasonable doubt that the sexual act occurred and that it was committed against the will of the victim.

    Article 335 of the Revised Penal Code states:

    “When by reason or on the occasion of the rape, the victim has become insane or a imbecile or she has lost the power of speech or is suffering from any illness that makes the subsequent marriage of the offender with the offended party impossible, the penalty shall be reclusion perpetua.”

    In evaluating consent, courts consider the totality of the circumstances, including the relationship between the victim and the accused, the presence of threats or violence, and the victim’s behavior during and after the incident. Prior jurisprudence has established that delay in reporting the incident does not automatically negate the credibility of the victim, especially if there is a valid explanation for the delay, such as fear of reprisal.

    Case Summary: People vs. Marieto Adora

    The case involves Marieto Adora, who was accused of raping Cecilia Cotorno, his niece-in-law, on four separate occasions. Cecilia had been living with Marieto and his wife since she was a young child, and she considered them as her adoptive parents. The alleged rapes occurred in their home while Cecilia’s aunt was away.

    The timeline of events is as follows:

    • June 25, 1992: The first rape allegedly occurred.
    • June 27, 1992: The second rape allegedly occurred.
    • August 1, 1992: The third rape allegedly occurred.
    • September 24, 1992: The fourth rape allegedly occurred.
    • December 30, 1992: Cecilia filed a complaint with the National Bureau of Investigation (NBI).
    • July 11, 1994: The Regional Trial Court convicted Marieto of four counts of rape.

    During the trial, Cecilia testified in detail about the rapes, stating that Marieto threatened her with a bolo (a large knife) and warned her not to tell anyone. She also explained that she initially kept silent due to fear of Marieto. The defense argued that Cecilia’s testimony was not credible, pointing to inconsistencies in her statements and the fact that she did not immediately report the incidents.

    The Supreme Court highlighted the importance of the victim’s testimony:

    “[W]hen a woman says that she has been raped, she says in effect all that is necessary to show that the rape has been committed, and that if her testimony meets the test of credibility the accused may be convicted on the basis thereof.”

    The Court also emphasized the impact of the appellant’s threat on the victim:

    “This threat was more than sufficient to break Cecilia’s resistance considering their relationship. x x x The test of sufficiency of force or intimidation in the crime of rape under Art. 335 of the Revised Penal Code, is whether it produces a reasonable fear in the victim that if she resists or does not yield to the bestial demands of the accused, that which the latter threatened to do would happen to her or to those dear to her.”

    Practical Implications and Lessons Learned

    This case underscores the importance of taking allegations of rape seriously and conducting thorough investigations. It reinforces the principle that a victim’s testimony, if credible, can be sufficient to secure a conviction. The case also highlights the impact of threats and intimidation on a victim’s ability to consent and the court’s consideration of these factors.

    Key Lessons

    • Credibility of Witness: The testimony of the victim, if deemed credible, is crucial in rape cases.
    • Force and Intimidation: Threats and intimidation can negate consent, even if physical violence is not present.
    • Delay in Reporting: Delay in reporting the incident does not automatically invalidate the victim’s testimony, especially if there is a reasonable explanation.

    Frequently Asked Questions (FAQs)

    Q: What constitutes ‘force’ or ‘intimidation’ in a rape case?

    A: Force refers to physical violence used to overcome the victim’s resistance. Intimidation involves threats or coercion that create a reasonable fear in the victim, compelling them to submit against their will.

    Q: Is a rape conviction possible based solely on the victim’s testimony?

    A: Yes, if the victim’s testimony is clear, consistent, and credible, it can be sufficient to secure a conviction, even without other corroborating evidence.

    Q: What factors do courts consider when assessing the credibility of a rape victim’s testimony?

    A: Courts consider the victim’s demeanor, consistency of their statements, the presence of any motive to falsely accuse the accused, and the overall plausibility of their account.

    Q: Does delay in reporting a rape incident weaken the case?

    A: Not necessarily. Courts recognize that victims may delay reporting due to fear, shame, or other valid reasons. The explanation for the delay is considered in assessing the victim’s credibility.

    Q: What is the penalty for rape in the Philippines?

    A: The penalty for rape under Article 335 of the Revised Penal Code is reclusion perpetua, which is imprisonment for at least 20 years and one day, up to 40 years.

    Q: What is civil indemnity in rape cases?

    A: Civil indemnity is monetary compensation awarded to the victim to cover damages suffered as a result of the crime. It is awarded automatically upon conviction.

    ASG Law specializes in criminal law and violence against women. Contact us or email hello@asglawpartners.com to schedule a consultation.

  • Rape Conviction: Overcoming the Defense of Consensual Sex

    When Can a Claim of Consensual Sex Be Overcome in Rape Cases?

    n

    G.R. No. 114901, May 29, 1997

    n

    Imagine being in your home, a place where you should feel safe, only to be confronted by an armed intruder who subjects you to a terrifying ordeal. This is precisely the scenario that unfolded in People v. Soriano, a case that underscores the complexities of rape cases and the crucial role of witness credibility in securing a conviction. The Supreme Court affirmed the lower court’s decision, highlighting the importance of evaluating the complainant’s testimony and the accused’s dubious defenses.

    nn

    The Law on Rape: Force, Intimidation, and Credibility

    n

    In the Philippines, rape is defined under Article 266-A of the Revised Penal Code, as amended, as the carnal knowledge of a woman under any of the following circumstances:

    n

      n

    • By using force or intimidation;

      • n

    • When the woman is deprived of reason or otherwise unconscious; and

      • n

    • When the woman is under twelve (12) years of age or is demented.

      • n

    n

    The essence of rape is the lack of consent. The prosecution must prove beyond reasonable doubt that the act was committed against the woman’s will, either through force, threat, or intimidation. The credibility of the complainant becomes paramount, especially when the accused claims the act was consensual.

    n

    Article 266-A of the Revised Penal Code explicitly states the ways in which rape is committed. It is crucial to note that force or intimidation doesn’t always mean physical violence; it can also include psychological coercion that compels the victim to submit against her will.

    n

    For example, if a man threatens to harm a woman’s family if she doesn’t comply with his sexual demands, this constitutes intimidation, even if he doesn’t physically assault her before the act.

    nn

    The Chilling Details of People v. Soriano

    n

    The case revolves around Hilda Acio, who, along with her friend Lesley Oania, stayed the night at her grandmother’s house. In the early morning hours, Lito Soriano, reeking of liquor and armed with a bolo, entered the house and awakened Hilda. He claimed to be seeking refuge after committing a murder.

    n

    Here’s a breakdown of the events that led to Soriano’s conviction:

    n

      n

    • Intrusion and Intimidation: Soriano, armed with a bolo, entered the house and warned the occupants, including Hilda, her friend, and her elderly grandmother, not to disclose his presence.

      • n

    • Forced Submission: He ordered Hilda to sit beside him, kissed her, and touched her breasts, all while brandishing the bolo.

      • n

    • Escalation and Assault: When Hilda refused to comply, Soriano smothered her grandmother’s face with a pillow and demanded that Hilda open the door.

      • n

    • The Rape: Soriano then dragged Hilda to the kitchen, pinned her against the wall, and forcibly removed her clothes before raping her.

      • n

    n

    Hilda immediately reported the incident, and a medical examination revealed abrasions and contusions consistent with her account. Soriano, on the other hand, claimed that he and Hilda were sweethearts and that the intercourse was consensual. He even alleged that he had seen Hilda with another man days before the incident.

    n

    The Court noted that Soriano’s testimony was inconsistent and unbelievable.

  • Rape Conviction Upheld: Understanding the Role of Force and Consent in Philippine Law

    Consent is Key: Force or Intimidation Nullifies ‘Sweethearts Theory’ in Rape Cases

    G.R. No. 114383, March 03, 1997

    Introduction

    Imagine a scenario where a romantic relationship is used as a defense in a rape case. Can the existence of a ‘sweethearts theory’ automatically negate the element of force or intimidation? This case, People of the Philippines vs. Joel Corea, delves into this complex issue, highlighting that even within a relationship, consent is paramount, and force or intimidation can still constitute rape.

    In this case, Joel Corea was convicted of raping AAA, a 15-year-old girl. Corea argued that AAA was his sweetheart and that the sexual encounter was consensual. The Supreme Court, however, scrutinized the evidence and upheld the conviction, emphasizing that the ‘sweethearts theory’ does not automatically negate the presence of force or intimidation.

    Legal Context: Defining Rape, Force, and Consent

    Under Philippine law, rape is defined as the carnal knowledge of a woman through force, threat, or intimidation. Article 335 of the Revised Penal Code specifies the circumstances under which rape is committed.

    The key element here is the absence of consent. Consent must be freely given, without any coercion or duress. The Supreme Court has consistently held that even in the context of a relationship, a woman cannot be forced to engage in sexual intercourse against her will. As the Court emphasized in this case, such a relationship “provides no license to explore and invade that which every virtuous woman holds so dearly and trample upon her honor and dignity.”

    The prosecution must prove beyond reasonable doubt that force or intimidation was used. This can be established through physical evidence of injuries, the victim’s testimony, and the surrounding circumstances of the incident.

    Case Breakdown: People vs. Joel Corea

    The case unfolded as follows:

    • AAA filed a criminal complaint against Joel Corea, alleging rape.
    • Corea pleaded not guilty, claiming AAA was his sweetheart and consented to the act.
    • The Regional Trial Court convicted Corea, finding his defense unconvincing.
    • Corea appealed to the Supreme Court, arguing the prosecution failed to prove force or intimidation beyond reasonable doubt.

    AAA testified that Corea pulled her to a house, dragged her upstairs, held her hands, and threatened her. She resisted by kicking, slapping, and shouting for help, but Corea overpowered her. A medical examination revealed multiple ecchymoses and abrasions, supporting her claim of resistance.

    Corea, on the other hand, claimed the encounter was consensual. He presented a Christmas card, a picture, and a ring as evidence of their relationship. However, the Court found these “tokens” unconvincing, especially since Corea could not adequately rebut AAA’s denial of the relationship.

    The Supreme Court, in affirming the conviction, emphasized the credibility of AAA’s testimony and the presence of physical injuries. As the Court noted, “Conviction or acquittal of an accused depends on the credibility of complainant’s testimony because of the fact that, usually, the only witnesses to the incident are the participants themselves.”

    The Court also stated:

    “The force required in rape cases need not be overpowering or irresistible when applied. The force or violence required is relative. Failure to shout or offer tenacious resistance did not make voluntary complainant’s submission to the criminal acts of the accused. What is necessary is that the force employed in accomplishing it is sufficient to consummate the purpose which the accused has in mind.”

    The Supreme Court ultimately ruled that even if AAA and Corea had a prior relationship, it did not negate the possibility of rape. Force and lack of consent were proven, leading to the affirmation of Corea’s conviction.

    Practical Implications: Consent is King

    This case underscores the critical importance of consent in sexual encounters. Here are some key takeaways:

    • A prior relationship does not imply consent to sexual activity.
    • Force or intimidation, even in a relationship, constitutes rape.
    • The victim’s testimony, if credible, can be sufficient for conviction.
    • Physical evidence of resistance strengthens the prosecution’s case.

    Key Lessons:

    • Always obtain clear and unequivocal consent before engaging in any sexual activity.
    • Recognize that consent can be withdrawn at any time.
    • Understand that force or intimidation negates consent, regardless of any prior relationship.

    Hypothetical Scenario:

    Imagine a couple who have been dating for several months. One night, one partner initiates sexual activity, and the other partner initially participates but then says, “I don’t want to do this anymore.” If the first partner continues despite this clear withdrawal of consent, it could constitute rape, even though they are in a relationship.

    Frequently Asked Questions

    Q: What constitutes force or intimidation in a rape case?

    A: Force can be physical violence, such as hitting, pushing, or restraining. Intimidation involves threats or coercion that compel the victim to submit against their will.

    Q: Is a prior relationship a valid defense in a rape case?

    A: No. A prior relationship does not automatically imply consent to sexual activity. Consent must be freely given and can be withdrawn at any time.

    Q: What evidence is needed to prove rape?

    A: Evidence may include the victim’s testimony, medical reports documenting injuries, and witness accounts of the events surrounding the incident.

    Q: What should I do if I have been sexually assaulted?

    A: Seek immediate medical attention, report the incident to the police, and consult with a lawyer to understand your legal options.

    Q: Can I still press charges if I didn’t physically resist?

    A: Yes. The law recognizes that victims may be unable to physically resist due to fear, shock, or other factors. The absence of physical resistance does not necessarily imply consent.

    Q: What is the penalty for rape in the Philippines?

    A: The penalty for rape is reclusion perpetua, which is imprisonment for a period of twenty years and one day to forty years.

    ASG Law specializes in Criminal Law. Contact us or email hello@asglawpartners.com to schedule a consultation.

  • Rape and Consent: Understanding Force, Intimidation, and the Victim’s Response in Philippine Law

    Understanding the Nuances of Force and Intimidation in Rape Cases

    G.R. No. 97425, September 24, 1996

    Imagine a young woman, barely out of childhood, whose life is irrevocably altered by an act of violence. The question of consent in rape cases is rarely black and white. It often hinges on understanding the subtle yet powerful dynamics of force, intimidation, and the victim’s response. This case, People of the Philippines vs. Romualdo Miranda y Geronimo, delves into these complexities, offering crucial insights into how Philippine courts assess these elements in rape trials.

    In this case, the accused, Romualdo Miranda, was convicted of raping a 13-year-old girl. The Supreme Court affirmed the conviction, emphasizing that force and intimidation need not be overpowering to constitute rape, especially when the victim is a minor. The Court also addressed the issue of the victim’s behavior after the assault, clarifying that there’s no standard way for a rape survivor to react.

    The Legal Framework of Rape in the Philippines

    Philippine law defines rape as having carnal knowledge of a woman under specific circumstances, including when force or intimidation is used, or when the woman is deprived of reason or is otherwise unconscious. The Revised Penal Code, specifically Article 266-A, outlines these circumstances. This case highlights the importance of understanding what constitutes ‘force’ and ‘intimidation’ in the eyes of the law.

    “Art. 266-A. Rape. – When a man shall have carnal knowledge of a woman under any of the following circumstances:
    1. By using force or intimidation;
    2. When the woman is deprived of reason or otherwise unconscious;
    3. By means of fraudulent machination or grave abuse of authority;
    4. When the woman is under twelve years of age, even though neither of the circumstances mentioned above be present;
    5. When the woman is demented, imbecile or insane and the offender knows it.”

    The law recognizes that force and intimidation can take many forms, and their impact can vary depending on the victim’s age, vulnerability, and the specific circumstances of the assault. Even the presence of a weapon or a verbal threat can be sufficient to establish intimidation.

    The Story of Maribel: A Case of Exploitation and Abuse

    Maribel Mendiola, a 13-year-old student, was abducted by Romualdo Miranda and his accomplice, Orlando Pajarillaga, after school. She was taken to Miranda’s sister’s house, where she was given a drugged soft drink, rendering her semi-conscious. While in this state, Miranda raped her, while Pajarillaga watched and laughed.

    The next morning, Maribel was taken to another location where she was forced to dance. She was then returned to her grandmother’s house with instructions not to reveal what had happened. However, she eventually confided in her parents, leading to Miranda’s arrest and trial.

    The key points of the case’s progression:

    • Maribel was accosted and forced into a jeep by Miranda and Pajarillaga.
    • She was drugged and raped at Miranda’s sister’s house.
    • A medical examination confirmed the presence of spermatozoa and healed lacerations.
    • Miranda argued that Maribel did not resist enough and that her behavior after the assault was inconsistent with rape.

    During the trial, Miranda’s defense centered on the argument that Maribel did not exhibit sufficient resistance and that her behavior after the assault was inconsistent with that of a rape victim. However, the Court rejected this argument, stating:

    “It is not unlikely that a girl of such tender age would be intimidated into silence by the mildest threat against her life. Moreover, force and violence required in rape cases is relative and need not be overpowering or irresistible when applied.”

    “There is no standard form of human behavioral response when one has just been confronted with a strange, startling or frightful experience as heinous as the crime of rape and not every victim to a crime can be expected to act reasonably and conformably with the expectation of mankind.”

    Practical Implications: Protecting the Vulnerable

    This case underscores the importance of understanding that force and intimidation in rape cases are not always overt. The Court’s decision emphasizes that the victim’s age, the presence of a weapon, and any form of coercion can be considered as elements of force and intimidation.

    For individuals, this means understanding that consent must be freely given and that any form of coercion, even subtle, can negate consent. For businesses and institutions, it highlights the need to create safe environments and implement policies that protect vulnerable individuals from sexual assault.

    Key Lessons:

    • Force and intimidation in rape cases are relative and depend on the circumstances.
    • A victim’s behavior after an assault does not necessarily indicate consent.
    • The age and vulnerability of the victim are crucial factors in determining guilt.

    Imagine a scenario where a company hosts a social event, and an employee pressures a junior colleague into drinking excessively. If that junior colleague is then sexually assaulted, this case would be relevant in determining whether the pressure to drink constituted a form of intimidation that negated consent.

    Frequently Asked Questions

    What constitutes force or intimidation in a rape case?

    Force or intimidation can include physical violence, threats, coercion, or any action that overcomes the victim’s will. The degree of force or intimidation required depends on the victim’s vulnerability and the specific circumstances of the assault.

    Does a victim have to physically resist to prove rape?

    No, a victim is not required to physically resist to prove rape. The absence of resistance does not automatically imply consent, especially if the victim was intimidated, drugged, or otherwise unable to resist.

    How does the victim’s behavior after the assault affect the case?

    The victim’s behavior after the assault is not a definitive indicator of consent. People react to trauma in different ways, and there is no standard way for a rape survivor to behave.

    What is the penalty for rape in the Philippines?

    The penalty for rape in the Philippines is reclusion perpetua, which is a term of imprisonment for life.

    What should I do if I or someone I know has been a victim of rape?

    Seek immediate medical attention, report the incident to the police, and seek legal counsel. It’s also essential to seek emotional support from trusted friends, family, or mental health professionals.

    ASG Law specializes in criminal law and violence against women and children (VAWC) cases. Contact us or email hello@asglawpartners.com to schedule a consultation.