G.R. No. 122478 February 24, 1998
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. RUSTUM LUZORATA, accused-appellant.

FACTS

Accused-appellant Rustum Luzorata was convicted of rape by the Regional Trial Court of Lapu-Lapu City and sentenced to reclusion perpetua, with an order to indemnify the victim P30,000.00. The victim, Maritess Cutamora, was a 15-year-old helper and neighbor of the accused, their houses being 30 to 40 meters apart. At around 3:00 a.m. on December 10, 1990, while Maritess was sleeping alone in her employer’s house, she felt a heavy weight on her back. Upon turning, she saw the accused, naked and holding a pair of scissors. She recognized him as his face was illuminated by a night light. The accused lifted her t-shirt, raised her skirt, removed her panties, and warned her to keep quiet or he would kill her when she resisted and told him he was bad. He then placed himself on top, parted her legs, and forcibly inserted his penis into her vagina with a “push-and-pull” movement while sucking her nipples. Afterward, he left through a window he had destroyed. Maritess bled and ached. The next morning, her employer noticed her condition, and after being told of the rape, accompanied her to the hospital. A medical examination revealed fresh lacerations with bleeding, abrasions, and the presence of spermatozoa. A complaint was filed on December 14, 1990.

ISSUE

The main issue is whether the conviction of Rustum Luzorata for rape is proper, considering the accused-appellant’s contentions regarding: (1) the lack of physical evidence of force; (2) the victim’s post-incident behavior; (3) the delay in reporting; (4) the victim’s alleged inability to identify the rapist; and (5) the defense of alibi and alleged revenge plot.

RULING

The Supreme Court AFFIRMED the conviction with MODIFICATION, increasing the indemnity to P50,000.00. The Court ruled:
1. Force or intimidation in rape need not produce physical injuries. Intimidation is sufficient and subjective, assessed based on the victim’s perception. Here, the accused used a pair of scissors to threaten the victim.
2. There is no standard behavioral response for a rape victim. The victim’s testimony was credible, straightforward, and untainted. The Court noted the inherent unlikelihood of a young barrio girl fabricating such a charge and undergoing public trial without a genuine desire for justice.
3. Delay in reporting is understandable as rape stigmatizes the victim, and Filipino women are often shy and coy about such matters.
4. The victim positively identified the accused. She recognized him when she turned her head, and the room was illuminated by a tiny bulb, making recognition possible despite her tears.
5. The defense of alibi presented by the accused’s wife was weak, inherently unreliable, and easily fabricated. It must be established with clear and convincing evidence and demonstrate physical impossibility of presence at the crime scene, which was not done. Positive identification by the victim, who had no ill motive, prevails over alibi. The alleged revenge plot was preposterous and irrelevant. The trial court’s findings on credibility were accorded great weight and respect.