PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, VS. RUSTUM  LUZORATA, ACCUSED-APPELLANT.

People versus Luzorata

The Case

This is the People of the Philippines against Rustum Luzorata, a criminal prosecution for rape decided by the Supreme Court in February 1998. The accused was a neighbor of the victim, a fifteen year old househelper, and was charged with having raped her at dawn inside her employer's house. The case matters to a reviewee because it is a compact treasury of the Court's settled rules on the elements of rape by force and intimidation, on the credibility of a rape victim, on the absence of any standard behavioral response after abuse, on delay in reporting, and on the weakness of alibi. It is the kind of decision examiners mine for bar questions on rape and on the assessment of evidence.

Procedural History

Maritess Cutamora lodged her complaint for rape against Rustum Luzorata in the Regional Trial Court of Lapu-Lapu City. On 29 October 1991, that court, through Judge Teodoro Risos, found the accused guilty as charged. It sentenced him to reclusion perpetua and ordered him to indemnify his victim thirty thousand pesos. The accused appealed his conviction to the Supreme Court, which reviewed the case and rendered the decision we now study.

Facts

Maritess Cutamora and Rustum Luzorata were neighbors in Pusok, Lapu-Lapu City, their houses only about thirty to forty meters apart. Maritess was a helper in the household of Ceferina Ibio. At around three o'clock in the morning of 10 December 1990, while Maritess slept face downwards, she suddenly felt a heavy weight on her back. When she turned around she saw a naked man holding a pair of scissors. It was the accused, whom she recognized at once, his face illuminated by the night light on the left side of her bed. Her employer was out of town.

The accused lifted her shirt, raised her skirt, and took off her panties. She tried to resist by crossing her legs, but to no avail. She told him, "kalain gud nimo Noy Rustum," and he warned her to keep quiet or he would kill her. He then placed himself on top of her, parted her legs, and forcibly inserted his penis into her vagina with a push and pull movement while alternately nibbling and sucking her nipples. After satisfying his lust he hurriedly put on his shorts and exited through the same window he had destroyed when he entered the house that morning.

Her vagina bled and ached, and she wept through the night. She was so disturbed that it took her a long while to open the door when her employer arrived that morning from Bohol. Her employer noticed her weak, weary, and exhausted condition, and after Maritess narrated what happened, accompanied her to the Lapu-Lapu District Hospital for examination. The examination showed fresh lacerations with bleeding and congested edges, and abrasions on her fourchette with white vaginal discharge indicating the presence of spermatozoa. On 14 December 1990 Maritess lodged her complaint for rape.

Issues

• Whether or not the absence of physical evidence of force, and the absence of external injuries on the victim, negates rape.
• Whether or not the complainant's conduct immediately after the incident negated her claim that she was raped.
• Whether or not the complainant's delay in reporting the rape to the authorities created serious doubts as to its truth.
• Whether or not the complainant could have identified the accused as her rapist.
• Whether or not the complainant's failure to confront the accused after the incident destroyed her credibility.
• Whether or not the defense of alibi, supported by the testimony of the accused's wife, warranted acquittal.

Applicable Provisions

The decision does not quote the penal provision on rape; it applies the settled doctrine that force need not always produce physical injuries, and that intimidation is sufficient. The Court states the governing rule in these words:

It is not necessary that force be employed. Intimidation is sufficient, and this includes threatening the victim with a knife.

This rule bears on the case because the accused used a pair of scissors to compel his victim to submit, and the Court held that intimidation is addressed to the mind of the victim and is therefore subjective, tested not by any hard and fast rule but by the victim's perception and judgment at the time of the crime.

On the credibility of the complainant, the Court laid down this principle:

In a prosecution for rape the complainant's credibility becomes the single most important issue. If her testimony meets the test of credibility, the accused may be convicted on the basis thereof.

This principle bears on the case because the trial court found Maritess' narration innocent, straightforward, and unflinching, untainted by any semblance of untruthfulness.

On the defense of alibi, the Court applied this standard:

Alibi as basis for acquittal must be established with clear and convincing evidence. The accused must convincingly demonstrate that it was physically impossible for him to have been at the scene of the crime at the time of its commission.

This standard bears on the case because the accused's wife testified that he was with her when the rape was committed, but the Court found her testimony unworthy of credence.

Ruling

On the first issue, the Court held that in rape, force need not always produce physical injuries. The absence of external signs of physical injuries and the failure of the victim to shout for help do not negate rape. Intimidation is sufficient, and the accused's use of a pair of scissors supplied that intimidation.

On the second issue, the Court held that it has laid down no rule on how a rape victim should behave immediately after abuse. The experience is relative, and different people act differently to a given stimulus. The complainant's credibility should not be tainted with any modicum of doubt, and her testimony is credible where she has no motive to testify falsely. Considering the inbred modesty of a Filipina and her revulsion against airing in public matters affecting her honor, it is hard to conceive that she would reveal and admit the ignominy she underwent if it were not true.

On the third issue, the Court held that it was understandable for the victim not to immediately report the rape, as Filipino women are known to be affectedly shy and coy, and rape stigmatizes the victim, not the perpetrator.

On the fourth issue, the Court rejected the contention as puerile. Although Maritess was lying face downwards and could not have seen the face of the accused at first, she positively identified him when she turned her head. The crime scene was not in pitch darkness, since a tiny bulb illuminated the room sufficiently for her to see and recognize him.

On the fifth issue, the Court held that the victim was a fifteen year old barrio lass who had finished only grade six and worked as a househelp, too naive in the ways of the world. One cannot expect a girl of her status to cry out in public her personal anguish, humiliation, and pain. The Court also took judicial notice of the fact that it is highly inconceivable for a young barrio girl to fabricate a charge of defloration, undergo a medical examination of her private parts, subject herself to public trial, and tarnish her own and her family's honor unless motivated by a potent desire to seek justice.

On the sixth issue, the Court held that the wife's effort at alibi merited no credence, and that alibi is weak when not substantiated by the testimony of a credible witness. Courts look upon alibi with suspicion because it is inherently weak, unreliable, and easily fabricated. Where the accused was positively identified by the victim herself, who harbored no ill motive against him, the defense of alibi must fail. The Court also rejected the alleged revenge plot as irrelevant and immaterial, and accorded great weight and respect to the findings of fact of the trial court, which was in a better position to determine questions of credibility.

Doctrine

• In rape, force need not always produce physical injuries; intimidation is sufficient, and it is subjective, measured by the victim's perception and judgment at the time of the crime.
• The complainant's credibility is the single most important issue in a rape prosecution; if her testimony meets the test of credibility, the accused may be convicted on the basis thereof.
• There is no standard form of behavioral response when one is confronted with a strange, startling, or frightful experience; the victim's conduct after the incident does not negate rape.
• Delay in reporting rape is understandable, given the Filipino woman's shyness and the stigma that rape places on the victim.
• Alibi must be established with clear and convincing evidence, showing that it was physically impossible for the accused to have been at the scene of the crime; it fails against positive identification by a victim who harbored no ill motive.
• Findings of fact of the trial court on credibility are accorded great weight and respect, absent any reason to overturn them.

Disposition

The Supreme Court affirmed the conviction of Rustum Luzorata for rape and the penalty of reclusion perpetua, but increased the indemnity from thirty thousand pesos to fifty thousand pesos, with costs against the accused.

Remember This

Memorize this line: in rape, force need not always produce physical injuries, and intimidation is sufficient. Examiners use this case to test the elements of rape by force and intimidation, the credibility of a rape victim, and the weakness of alibi.