PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, VS. SAMUEL ULZORON, ACCUSED-APPELLANT.

People versus Ulzoron

The Case

This is the People of the Philippines against Samuel Ulzoron, a criminal appeal from a conviction for rape committed with the use of a deadly weapon. The complaining witness is Emily Gabo, whom the accused was charged with assaulting at a well in a barangay of Roxas, Palawan. The case matters to a reviewee because it gathers, in one decision, the Court's settled teaching on the kind of intimidation that consummates rape, on the irrelevance of physical injuries to the victim, on the continuing nature of moral intimidation, and on the validity of a judgment written by a judge who did not personally hear the witnesses. It also reminds us that the civil indemnity must be awarded even where the trial court forgot it.

Procedural History

The accused was charged with rape with the use of a deadly weapon. The Regional Trial Court of Palawan, through an assisting judge acting under an administrative order, tried the case and on the eighth of March 1995 rendered judgment finding the accused guilty as charged and sentencing him to reclusion perpetua. No indemnity was awarded to Emily for the sexual assault. The accused appealed his conviction to the Supreme Court, and the appeal was resolved by the Court's Third Division, with the Office of the Solicitor General appearing for the People.

Facts

On the thirty-first of March 1987, at around ten o'clock in the morning, Emily Gabo was watering her plants near a well in Barangay Tumarbong, Roxas, Palawan. Samuel Ulzoron suddenly appeared, armed with a two-foot long bolo hanging in its scabbard at his waist, with a long-sleeved work shirt slung over his shoulder. He asked where her husband was. She said Roberto was already in the kaingin and advised him to follow, but Samuel chose to remain and rest on an anthill some two and a half meters from the well.

After Emily finished watering her plants and before she could begin washing clothes, Samuel grabbed her wrists and locked them behind her back with one hand, drawing his bolo with the other and pointing it at her neck. She struggled but was so intimidated that she could not shout for help, and her strength eventually left her. He then moved her some forty meters away to the bushes and tall grasses, forced her to lie down, mounted her, laid the bolo beside him, pinned her arms with one hand, and with the other loosened the buttons of her dress. He ripped off her dress and panties, opened the zipper of his pants, and inserted his penis into her vagina, copulating with her for about fifteen minutes while her efforts proved no match for his strength.

Then Emily heard her husband's voice calling for her. Roberto had seen her slippers near the well and had frantically called out. When Samuel heard the voice, he dashed off and fled to the thickets. Roberto followed the direction of Emily's voice, found her emerging from the bushes in a state of shock, and was told that Samuel Ulzoron had sexually abused her. They went to the place where she had been dragged and found the bolo and the work shirt, which they took home. The following afternoon Emily was examined by a physician, who noted discharge mixed with semen in her private part, which could have been caused by sexual intercourse within twenty-four hours before the examination. The next day she lodged her complaint for rape and turned over the accused's belongings to the police. The accused, for his part, claimed he had merely left his bolo and shirt near the well and, on returning for them, saw the Gabo spouses having sexual intercourse in a hut, and went away out of shame.

Issues

• Whether or not the trial court erred in convicting the accused on the basis of the weakness of his defense rather than on the strength of the prosecution's evidence.
• Whether or not the absence of physical injuries on the victim negates the element of force or intimidation in rape.
• Whether or not the bolo ceased to be an instrument of intimidation when the accused laid it beside him while on top of the victim.
• Whether or not the judgment is invalid because the judge who wrote it did not personally try the case and observe the demeanor of the witnesses.

Applicable Provisions

The decision applies the crime of rape as defined and penalized under the Revised Penal Code, committed with the use of a deadly weapon, which raises the penalty to reclusion perpetua. The Court's reasoning rests on the statutory element of force or intimidation, which the decision treats as satisfied by moral intimidation, that is, fear caused by threatening a woman with a knife.

Article 335 of the Revised Penal Code, as amended, defines rape as committed by having 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; and 3. When the woman is under twelve years of age or is demented.

This provision bears on the case because the conviction stands or falls on the first circumstance, force or intimidation, which the Court found present from the bolo pointed at Emily's neck.

Ruling

On the first issue, the Court held that the conviction was not founded on the weakness of the defense but on the overwhelming evidence of the prosecution. The accused's claim of an adulterous relationship, which the Solicitor General called a sweetheart defense raised for the first time on appeal, was not brushed aside as a defense; the Court treated it as an attempt to dispute the trial court's appreciation of the evidence, and still found it unpersuasive.

On the second issue, the Court held that the absence of injuries does not negate force or intimidation. The word dragged, the Court explained, should not be read as dragged along the ground; on cross-examination Emily described the accused as holding her hands and pushing her forward, which explains the absence of injuries. The Court stated the rule plainly:

At any rate, it is not necessary for the commission of rape that there be marks of physical violence on the victim's body.

On the third issue, the Court held that intimidation may be of the moral kind, such as the fear caused by threatening a woman with a knife. The intimidation began when the bolo was pointed at Emily's neck near the well and continued even after the accused placed it beside him while on top of her, since he remained at liberty to point it anew at her neck or any part of her body. The significant consideration is that the intimidation was continuous, sufficient to engender fear in her mind.

On the fourth issue, the Court held that the circumstance that the judge who wrote the decision had not heard the prosecution witnesses does not taint the decision, since he had the records before him, including the transcript of stenographic notes. The validity of a decision is not impaired by the fact that its writer took over from a colleague who presided at the trial, unless there is a clear showing of grave abuse of discretion in the appreciation of the facts, and none existed. The torn dress and underwear and the medico-legal report, the Court said, are more eloquent than a hundred witnesses, and the victim's conduct immediately after the assault, revealing the violation to her husband, submitting to medical examination, and filing the complaint at once, was consistent with a truthful and credible testimony.

Doctrine

First, rape is consummated by carnal knowledge attained through force or intimidation, and intimidation may be moral, such as the fear produced by pointing a knife at the victim's neck. Second, the intimidation need not be physically applied at every moment; it is enough that it is continuous and sufficient to engender fear in the victim's mind, so that a weapon laid aside by an accused who remains in a position to use it still intimidates. Third, the absence of physical injuries or marks of violence on the victim does not negate rape, for struggle need not always result in injury. Fourth, the validity of a judgment is not impaired by the fact that its writer did not personally try the case, absent a clear showing of grave abuse of discretion in the appreciation of the facts. Fifth, every conviction for rape carries the civil indemnity of fifty thousand pesos in favor of the victim, even if the trial court omitted it.

Disposition

The Supreme Court affirmed the decision of the trial court finding Samuel Ulzoron guilty of rape and sentencing him to reclusion perpetua, and in addition ordered him to indemnify Emily Gabo in the amount of fifty thousand pesos and to pay the costs.

Remember This

Memorize the line that intimidation may be moral, such as the fear caused by threatening a woman with a knife, and that it remains continuous so long as the accused can point the weapon anew. Examiners use this case to test whether the absence of physical injuries defeats a rape charge, and whether a judgment written by a judge who did not hear the witnesses is valid.