PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, VS. AGUSTIN ABIERA ALIAS “AGOT,” DEFENDANT-APPELLANT.

This is how Alma Villacacan, a 15-year old barrio lass at that
time, awoke to the end of innocence.

At about 6:00 o’clock in the evening of June 25, 1984, she went
to retrieve a goat she had earlier tethered to a tree near the house of her
uncle, Agustin Abiera, in Barangay Opsan, Tobias Fornier, Antique. She heard him call her softly, saying he had
something to ask her. In obedience,
Alma approached Abiera. Without
warning, the latter gripped her shoulder and suddenly hit her twice on the
abdomen, causing her to faint. When she
regained consciousness, she found herself lying half-naked on the floor inside Abiera’s house. Abiera was sitting beside her, wearing only
his briefs and holding her skirt and underpants. She felt pain all over her body, especially her private part,
which was wet and bleeding.^[1]

Realizing what had happened, Alma started crying, at the same
time hitting and kicking Abiera in helpless rage. She called him a traitor and threatened to tell her father. Abiera covered her mouth with his hand and
threatened to kill her if she reported the incident. He then handed her her clothes and sent her home.^[2]

It was only on July 3, 1984, that Alma summoned enough courage to
tell her parents about the rape. Enraged, her father Manuel Villacacan, together with his two sons, Jerry
and Louie Villacacan, sought Abiera to avenge Alma’s honor. They found him and hacked him, inflicting
wounds on his right shoulder, nape and at the back of his right palm.^[3]

Abiera proceeded to the hospital for treatment after first
seeking refuge at the house of his uncle Espiridion Tacda. Manuel Villacacan went to the municipal
building to surrender.

Alma submitted to a medical examination on July 12, 1984, with
the assistance of Amparo David, a neighbor and friend. The examining physician, Dr. Maria Gracita
Lañada, reported that Alma suffered a hymenal laceration which, however, had
already healed, probably due to the lapse of seventeen days from the time the
alleged injury was sustained. No
spermatozoa were found at the time of examination.^[4]

In his defense, Abiera denied the rape and claimed that the
charge was brought against him by Alma in retaliation for the frustrated murder
charge he had earlier filed against Manuel, Jerry and Louie Villacacan for
hacking him. On cross-examination,
however, he could not give any reason why the Villacacans would want to kill
him. He also admitted that they had
never had any previous altercation.^[5]

Espiridion Tacda testified that Manuel Villacacan asked him to
intercede for him and implore Abiera not to file any charge against him and his
sons. He said he relayed this request
to Abiera, who rejected it, whereupon Alma’s father threatened to file the rape
case against him.^[6]

The defense showed that the complaint for frustrated murder
against Manuel, Jerry and Louie Villacacan was filed on July 11, 1984, whereas
the criminal complaint for rape against Abiera was filed by Alma Villacacan
only on August 29, 1984.

The trial court was not persuaded by the defense. After considering the evidence of the
parties, Judge Bonifacio Sanz Maceda of the Regional Trial Court of Antique
found Abiera guilty of the crime of rape against Alma Villacacan, under Article
335, paragraph 2, of the Revised Penal Code, and sentenced him to “reclusion
perpetua or life imprisonment.”^[7]

The appellant now faults the trial court for (a) giving weight
and credence to the improbable and conflicting testimony of the private
complainant, (b) convicting the accused-appellant of the crime of rape under
Article 335, paragraph 2, of the Revised Penal Code and (c) not acquitting the
accused-appellant on the ground of reasonable doubt.

Abiera argues that there was no evidence to show that he was
caught in the act of having sexual intercourse with the complainant nor was
there any clear or convincing testimony that he had carnal knowledge of
her. He says it does not follow that he
raped her simply because she found herself at his house, allegedly without her
undergarments and with her vagina bleeding.

The appellant invokes Article 335 of the Revised Penal Code,
providing as follows:

Art. 335. When and how
rape is committed. – Rape is
committed by having carnal knowledge of a woman under any of the following
circumstances.

1)      By using force and
intimidation;

2)      When the woman is
deprived of reason or otherwise unconscious; and

3)      When the woman is
under twelve years of age, even though neither of the circumstances mentioned
in the two next preceding paragraphs shall be present.

x        x          x

His position is that the vital element of carnal knowledge has
not been proven by the prosecutor. Furthermore, it was erroneous for the trial court to convict him of rape
committed when the victim was deprived of reason or otherwise unconscious, in
violation of Article 335, paragraph 2, when this particular mode was not
charged in the information. The
allegation therein was that he had carnal knowledge of Alma Villacacan by means
of force, violence and intimidation under paragraph 1 of the said Article.

The appellant maintains that he cannot be convicted of rape
committed under one mode when the information alleged another mode. He cites the case of People v. Pailano,^[8] where this Court held that to convict
the appellant on the finding that he had committed rape while the victim was
unconscious or otherwise deprived of reason – and not through force and
intimidation, which was the method alleged – would violate his constitutional
right to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation against him.

That case works against
the appellant. In Pailano, this Court
impliedly recognized that an accused charged with rape through one mode of
commission may still be convicted of the crime if the evidence shows another
mode of commission provided that the accused did not object to such
evidence. The Court said:

It may be argued that although initially deficient, the criminal
complaint was deemed corrected when the prosecution introduced evidence on the
complainant’s mental condition and the defense did not object, thereby waiving
the procedural defect. Even so, the
charge has not been adequately established.

The prosecution presented evidence to show that Abiera had carnal
knowledge of the complainant when by means of force, violence and intimidation,
he boxed her in the stomach, causing her to lose consciousness, after which he
violated her. When Alma regained
consciousness, the outrage had already been committed. Her deshabille, her bleeding vagina,
the near-naked man beside her – all these reasonably indicated that Abiera had
deflowered Alma while she was unconscious. The defense did not object to the presentation of evidence to establish
all these circumstances.

The Pailano case is different from the case at bar because it has
been proven that Abiera had carnal knowledge of Alma after rendering her
unconscious. Pailano was acquitted
because it was not established that he used force and intimidation upon the
complainant or that the girl was mentally deficient.

The appellant assails the finding of the trial court that the
hymenal laceration was due to the rape and submits that it could have been
caused by severe physical exertion like biking, horseback-riding, or mere
passage of blood clots during menstruation, in view especially of the lack of
spermatozoa in Alma’s genital organ.

We have held in a number of cases that the presence or absence of
spermatozoa is immaterial since it is not ejaculation but penetration, however
slight, which constitutes the crime of rape.^[9]

Furthermore, it is unlikely that spermatozoa would still remain
in the victim’s genital organ after the lapse of 17 days from the commission of
the rape.

Alma’s delay in reporting the rape was due to the threat of death
made upon her by the appellant, who lived only 55 meters away from her house. Moreover, it is not uncommon for young girls
to conceal for some time the assault on their virtue because of the stigma that
unfairly attaches to any maiden whose chastity has been stained, even against
her will.

In People v. Santiago,^[10] we
held that the lapse of the period of 35 days before the victim finally reported
the sexual abuse committed against her by the accused could not render her
testimony doubtful. In the case at bar,
Alma reported her rape to her father on July 3, 1984, or only 8 days after its
commission.

Alma also explained that it took her several days after the rape
before she submitted to medical examination because nobody had suggested that
she go to a doctor. She decided to be
examined only when her friend, Amparo David, advised her to do so and offered
to accompany her.

Her parents were of no help to her because her father was then
already in prison for the hacking of the appellant, while her mother was
attending to her young sister. The same
reasons explain the lapse of about two months before she could file the
criminal complaint for rape against Abiera.

The Villacacans attacked Abiera on July 3, 1984, the very day
Alma informed her father of the crime perpetrated against her by the
appellant. They wanted to avenge the
dishonor he had brought upon their family. Abiera himself could not give any reason why the Villacacans would make
an attempt on his life, considering that they had had no previous dispute and
that they were neighbors and even related to each other.

The inconsistencies between Alma’s testimony and the statement
she gave during the preliminary examination are minor discrepancies that do not
detract from the substance of her narration. True, a rape victim cannot push out of her mind the violent attack upon
her chastity but she is nevertheless not expected to remember all the sordid
details of that traumatic experience.

It is difficult to believe that an unmarried woman would complain
about her debauched honor, allow the examination of her private parts and
permit herself to be the subject of a public trial, unless she was motivated by
an honest desire to seek justice.^[11] Alma
was a naive 15-year old maiden when her innocence was defiled. The story of her violation was not concocted
out of thin air by a worldly-wise woman but was a painful account of how, a
virgin when she fainted, she awoke to find her maidenhood outraged.

We hold that the trial court did not err in finding the appellant
guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of rape against Alma Villacacan,
punishable under Article 335, paragraph 2 of the Revised Penal Code. It erred, however, in sentencing him to the
penalty of “reclusion perpetua
or life imprisonment” as the two penalties are not synonymous. Life imprisonment does not carry the
accessory penalties attached to reclusion perpetua. The proper penalty is reclusion perpetua, to
which the Court will add a civil indemnity of P30,000.00 to be paid to the
ravished victim.

ACCORDINGLY, the appealed decision is AFFIRMED as above
modified, with costs against the accused-appellant.

SO ORDERED.

Griño-Aquino, Bellosillo, and Quiason, JJ.,
concur.

^[1]
TSN, September 23, 1985, pp. 15-24, 32.

^[2]
Ibid., pp. 24-26.

^[3]
Id., p. 55; January 20, 1987,
pp. 4-5.

^[4]
TSN, September 23, 1985, pp. 6-7.

^[5]
TSN, January 20, 1987, pp. 9, 22, 25.

^[6]
TSN, May 26, 1987, pp. 5-6.

^[7]
Records, pp. 333-339.

^[8]
169 SCRA 649.

^[9]
People v. Banayo, 195 SCRA 543; People v. Tongson 194 SCRA 257;
People v. Yambao, 193 SCRA 571.

^[10]
197 SCRA 556.

^[11]
People v. Patilan, 197 SCRA 354; People v. Yambao, supra.