PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PETITIONER-APPELLEE, VS. SALVADOR BIENDO, ACCUSED-APPELLANT.

Appellant Salvador Biendo was charged with the crime of rape by the
Provincial Fiscal of Iloilo.

The information dated 14 July 1982 alleged:

“x x x That on or about April 20, 1982, in the Municipality of
Balasan, Province of Iloilo, Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of this Court, the
above-named accused, by means of force, violence, and/or intimidation, did then
and there willfully (sic), unlawfully and feloniously have sexual intercourse
or carnal knowledge with Jocelyn Arbacan, a girl, 15 years of age, against her
will and/or consent.

CONTRARY TO LAW.”^[1]

The victim-complainant, Jocelyn Arbacan, was the only witness for
the prosecution to testify regarding the manner in which the crime was
committed.

The accused interposed the defense that the complainant had an
illicit sexual relationship with him prior to the date of the alleged rape.

On 17 January 1986, the trial court rendered a decision the
dispositive portion of which reads:

“WHEREFORE, judgment is hereby rendered finding the accused,
SALVADOR BIENDO, guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of RAPE, defined
and punishable under Article 335 of the Revised Penal Code, and the Court
sentences the said accused to suffer life imprisonment, to suffer the accessory
penalties provided for by law, to indemnify Jocelyn Arbacan in the sum of
P20,000 without subsidiary imprisonment in case of insolvency, and to pay the
costs x x x.”^[2]

The evidence for the prosecution, based on the testimony of the
complainant, was summarized by the trial court as follows:

“x x x at about 11:00 o’clock in the morning of April 20,
1982, she [meaning the complainant] was in her house when the accused passed by
on his way home from the fishpond; the accused told her to buy Pepsi-cola for
him, gave her P1.50, and instructed her to bring the Pepsi-cola to his house
some 300 meters away; she obliged as the accused being her uncle, was used to
letting her do things for him; she went to the store which is past the house of
the accused and bought Pepsi-cola, and delivered the softdrink to the accused
who was on top of the stairs by the door of his house; after she had moved 10
meters away, the accused told her to come back which she did; after she had
gone up the house, the accused embraced her so she could not move, told her not
to shout nor move or he would kill her, pulled down her shorts which was
underneath her dress; she pushed the accused to release herself and she
intended to go down the house, but the accused held her again and dragged her
to a private room; on the way he removed his pants, leaving himself naked from
the waist down; the accused made her lie down, pulled her short (sic) with a
hand which she tried to prevent but failed, his other hand holding her; the
accused succeeded in having her thighs apart, after which the accused was able
to have sexual intercourse with her; the accused warned her not to tell anybody
otherwise he would kill her; she went home and did not tell her mother what
happened because she was afraid of the accused as he had been imprisoned in
Muntinglupa; she kept on pondering on what to do until she told her mother on
April 26, 1982; they went to the barangay captain who accompanied them to the
police; upon advice of the station commander, they went to Dr. Noel C. Posadas
in Batad, Iloilo, who examined her. x x
x Dr. Posadas founds (sic) 4:00 o’clock healed laceration in the hymen of the
complainant (Exhibit “A”). According to Dr. Posadas the healed laceration was superficial and it
was possible the sexual intercourse was on April 20, 1982.”^[3]

The version of the accused was as follows:

“The accused depicted the complainant as a temptress at an
early age of 15. The accused alleged
that the complainant ate her supper with other fish catchers in the evening of
January 5, 1982 in a hut in the fishpond where the accused was working, and
from there surreptitiously went to the hut where he was sleeping and lay by his
side, he did not know that the person beside him was a woman until he felt the
breast, the woman did not complain when he touched her private parts, and being
a man, he was aroused, the woman responded, and he came to know that the woman
was no other than the complainant after the inter­course.”^[4]

The trial court, in convicting the accused, relied on the
“spontaneous answers and straight-forward and coherent narration of the
complainant” which was unshaken by the lengthy cross-examination.^[5]
The defense version was rejected by the trial court as being a tall tale for
the reason that it is “contrary to the traditional modesty of the Filipino
woman.”^[6]

In  this appeal, the
accused-appellant assigns the following errors to the trial court:

“I. x x x IN
CONVICTING THE ACCUSED OF RAPE CONSIDERING THAT THE COMPLAINANT HERSELF
SUBMITTED HERSELF TO THE ACCUSED AND THEREFORE VOLUNTARY (sic).

II. x x x IN NOT
ACCEPTING THE DEFENSE OF THE ACCUSED THAT THE CHARGE OF RAPE AGAINST HIM WAS
VENGEANCE ON THE PART OF THE COMPLAINANT SINCE THE FORMER TERMINATED THEIR
RELATIONSHIP.

III. x x x IN NOT GIVING
DUE COURSE (TO) THE DEFENSE OF THE ACCUSED [THAT] THERE WAS NO RAPE COMMITTED
BY THE ACCUSED SINCE NO INJURIES WAS (sic) FOUND IN (sic) THE BODY OF THE
COMPLAINANT AS PER MEDICAL CERTIFICATE ISSUED BY DR. NOEL POSADAS WHO EXAMINED
THE COMPLAINANT.”^[7]

The rule is well settled that when a woman says that she has been
raped, she says, in effect, all that is necessary to show that rape was
committed and that if her testimony meets the test of credibility, the accused
may be convicted on the basis thereof.^[8]

In the case at bar, the trial court was
clearly impressed by the testimony of the victim, Jocelyn Arbacan. The defense failed to show any improper
motive on the part of Jocelyn to impute such a crime on her uncle, except for
the self-serving and uncorroborated allegation of the accused that he was being charged because he had
decided to end their illicit relationship.^[9] This
Court finds no compel­ling reason to disturb the findings of the trial court
regarding the credibility of the complainant.

The absence of physical injuries on other parts of the body of
the complainant is immaterial for this Court has ruled that the absence of
physical injuries on the complainant’s body does not negate the complainant’s
testimony that she was raped, nor does it
make the complainant a willing partner in the sex act.^[10]
Additio­nally, as in the case of People
v. Rio,^[11]
we find it hard to believe that a mother would allow her child to suffer the
trauma and embarrassment of a public trial by charging someone, especially her
own brother-in-law, of rape for reasons other than to obtain justice for the
dastardly act.

Finally, regarding the penalty imposed by the trial court, the
proper term should be reclusion perpetua as correctly pointed
out by the Solicitor General, instead of life imprisonment, in accordance with
Article 335 of the Revised Penal Code as amended. The civil indemnity imposed is increased to Fifty Thousand Pesos
(P50,000) in accordance with our ruling in the case of People v. Magaluna,^[12]
considering that the victim is the accused’s niece.

WHEREFORE, the
decision appealed from is AFFIRMED with the following modifications:

(1) The appellant shall suffer the penalty of reclusion
perpetua; and

(2) The award of civil
indemnity in favor of Jocelyn Arbacan is increased to Fifty Thousand Pesos
(P50,000), with costs against the appellant.

SO ORDERED.

Cruz, (Chairman), Grino-Aquino, and
Bellosillo, JJ., concur.

^[1]
Original Records, p. 15

^[2]
Rollo, p. 30

^[3]
Rollo, pp. 25–26

^[4]
Rollo, p. 29

^[5]
Rollo, p. 28

^[6]
Rollo, p. 29

^[7]
Rollo, p. 153

^[8]
People vs. De los Reyes, G.R. No. 85771, 19 November 1991, 203 SCRA 707

^[9]
TSN, p. 1, 10 June 1985

^[10]
People v. Barcelona, G.R. No. 82589, 31 October 1990, 191 SCRA 100

^[11]
G.R. No. 90294, 24 September 1991, 201 SCRA 702

^[12]
G.R. No. 66755, 23 January 1992, 205 SCRA 266