G.R. No. 93947 May 21, 1993
People of the Philippines, plaintiff-appellee, vs. Agustin Abiera alias “Agot”, defendant-appellant.

FACTS

On June 25, 1984, at around 6:00 PM, 15-year-old Alma Villacacan went to retrieve a goat near the house of her uncle, Agustin Abiera. Abiera called her, and when she approached, he suddenly gripped her shoulder and hit her twice on the abdomen, causing her to faint. Upon regaining consciousness inside Abiera’s house, she found herself half-naked, with Abiera sitting beside her wearing only his briefs and holding her clothes. She felt pain all over her body, especially in her private part, which was wet and bleeding. Abiera threatened to kill her if she reported the incident. Alma reported the rape to her parents on July 3, 1984, prompting her father and brothers to hack and wound Abiera. A medical examination on July 12, 1984, revealed a healed hymenal laceration but no spermatozoa. Abiera denied the rape, claiming the charge was fabricated in retaliation for the frustrated murder case he filed against Alma’s family after the hacking incident. The trial court convicted Abiera of rape under Article 335, paragraph 2, of the Revised Penal Code and sentenced him to “reclusion perpetua or life imprisonment.”

ISSUE

1. Whether the trial court erred in giving credence to the testimony of the private complainant.
2. Whether the element of carnal knowledge was proven.
3. Whether the appellant can be convicted under Article 335, paragraph 2 (when the woman is deprived of reason or otherwise unconscious), when the information alleged rape by means of force and intimidation under paragraph 1.
4. Whether the delay in reporting the rape and the absence of spermatozoa create reasonable doubt.

RULING

The Supreme Court affirmed the conviction with modification. The trial court did not err in crediting Alma’s testimony, as minor inconsistencies did not detract from the substance of her narration, and it is unlikely an unmarried woman would fabricate a story exposing herself to public trial. Carnal knowledge was sufficiently proven by Alma’s account of regaining consciousness half-naked with a bleeding private part and Abiera beside her holding her clothes, corroborated by medical evidence of a hymenal laceration. The presence or absence of spermatozoa is immaterial, as penetration, not ejaculation, constitutes rape. The appellant can be convicted under paragraph 2 even if the information alleged paragraph 1, because the defense did not object to the presentation of evidence showing the victim was unconscious, thereby waiving any procedural defect, as impliedly recognized in People v. Pailano. The delay in reporting was justified due to Abiera’s death threat and the natural reluctance of young victims, and the immediate vengeful hacking by Alma’s family supported her claim. However, the trial court erred in equating “reclusion perpetua” with “life imprisonment,” as they are not synonymous; life imprisonment does not carry the accessory penalties of reclusion perpetua. The proper penalty is reclusion perpetua, and the appellant is ordered to pay civil indemnity of P30,000.00 to the victim.