Adm. Matter No. P-2357 - Morales vs. Lotuaco

Complainant Rosalinda D. Morales accused respondent Renato Lotuaco, a deputy provincial sheriff of the Court of First Instance (CFI) of Nueva Ecija at Cabanatuan City, of having committed acts of rape.
Agustin A. Alonzo, the co-respondent and fellow deputy sheriff, was also implicated; however, he later died on May 16, 1981, rendering his case moot.
A third person, Marianita Batac, was alleged to have acted in connivance with Lotuaco in committing the alleged offenses.

On January 2, 1979, around 11:30 a.m., Rosalinda was allegedly forced by Lotuaco, with the assistance of Alonzo and Marianita Batac, to enter a car stationed in front of the CFI building.
The group was taken to the O’Patso Restaurant, a place noted for its private rooms (akin to a motel).

Inside one of the private rooms, with Agustin Alonzo and Marianita present initially, Rosalinda purportedly attempted to leave.
Renato Lotuaco is said to have used force and intimidation, including a blow to her abdomen, to subdue her and undress her, subsequently consummating sexual intercourse against her will.

Approximately five days later, at about 10:00 a.m., a similar incident allegedly occurred at the Sawali Restaurant along the Cagayan Valley road.

Lotuaco, together with Marianita Batac, forced Rosalinda once again into his car and brought her to a cabin (cottage) in the restaurant complex.
Under threat and with apparent coercion, another act of sexual intercourse was performed.

Being persuaded by her friend Marianita to accompany her to the CFI building, originally under the guise of a job opportunity with Lotuaco.
The subsequent ride in Lotuaco’s car, during which she claimed forceful behavior and a deliberate detour away from her residence.
Instances of being physically overpowered—attempting to leave but met with physical force and a claim that a door “could not be unlocked from inside.”
A follow-up encounter at the Sawali restaurant where, despite her protests and cries, another sexual act was consummated.

He admitted to having sexual relations with Rosalinda on two separate occasions.
He denied using force or intimidation, claiming that the sexual encounters were consensual and were preceded by a fee of P250.00 for each act.
He contended that the transactions took place not in January 1979 but rather in September or October 1978.

The investigation highlighted several discrepancies in Rosalinda’s testimony—specifically regarding the inconsistencies in her account of events, the manner in which she was allegedly coerced, and the timing of her actions.
Factors such as the absence of immediate complaints, the lack of torn clothing or physical evidence indicative of a struggle, and the strategic direction taken by the vehicle were noted.
The judge observed that the alleged forcible sexual encounters did not conform to the typical evidentiary and behavioral patterns associated with genuine acts of rape.
Rosalinda’s delayed reporting and the physical and testimonial inconsistencies, including the improbability of her pregnancy timeline based on the dates provided, were stressed.

Rosalinda later discovered her pregnancy in August 1979, leading to the birth and subsequent death of her child after three days.
A criminal complaint for rape was filed; however, a parallel criminal case filed in the Office of the City Fiscal was dismissed on December 20, 1979, for lack of prima facie evidence.
The Ministry of Justice later affirmed the dismissal on the ground that the complainant’s testimony lacked credibility.

Whether Rosalinda’s testimony detailing the use of force and intimidation was credible given the inconsistencies in her narrative.
How the sequence and circumstances of events, such as the detour taken by the car and her opportunity to resist, affect the perception of coercion.

Whether the sexual intercourse was indeed non-consensual as alleged by Rosalinda or a consensual act conducted for a fee as claimed by Lotuaco.
The significance of the physical evidence, or lack thereof, in corroborating the alleged use of violence.

The reliability of the dates claimed by the complainant versus the respondent’s assertion of an earlier incident and how this discrepancy impacts the determination of consent or rape.
The implication of a seven-month reported gestation period in contrast to the respondent’s timeline, raising issues regarding the natural course of pregnancy detection and reporting.