G.R. No.

82589 October 31, 1990

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee,
vs.
GIDEON BARCELONA y DEQUITO, defendant-appellant.
Facts:
Around 6:30 p.m. of November 7, 1985, Sylina Rodriguez, a sixteen-year old high scholl student of the Roxas National
Comprehensive High School in Roxas, Palawan, was walking on her way home. She was overtook by a jogger who
suddenly turned back and pulled her towards the bushes. She was then forcibly undressed and was to lade to lay down
on her back. he then inserted his organ into her private part.

The was then accompanied by her uncle and auntie to report the incident to the police and was then brought to the
hospital for exemination.

Upon information from Hernando Cayaon that he saw accused-appellant, Gideon Barcelona jogging near the diversion
road in the late afternoon of November 7, 1985, the police authorities invited the latter on November 9, 1985 for
questioning (November 18, 1986, tsn, p. 3). Upon confrontation, the victim positively Identified accused-appellant as the
person who raped her (July 2, 1986, tsn, p. 14). Thereafter, accused-appellant was placed under arrest. 4

Version of the Accused:

He was employed since October 1985 in the finishing outfit of Paning Paner and has their base at Cabugan Island,
Roxas, Palawan. Normally, they go to the Poblacion of Roxas every Saturday to haul water and supplies. Sometime in the
afternoon of November 9, 1985, he was fetched by P/Sgt. Eriberto Castillo of Roxas Police Station and taken to the
Municipal Building. In the said place he saw Melchor Cayaon as well as his brothers and sisters. He alleged since
complainant saw him, she did not positively Identified him but entertained doubts as the person who raped her.

Supporting his testimony was a detainee who at that time alleged that he heard the complainant describe that the person
who raped her had curly hair. Suspect Melchor Cayaon had curly hair while accused Gideon Barcelona had no curly hair.

Accused also presented another witness, alleging that accused Barcelona never went to the area where the rape
occurred.

Issue:
WON the Trial Court erred in giving testimony to the complainant which is allegedly materially inconsistent,
contradictory and incredible

WON Trial Court erred in convicting accused-appellant, when there is no evidence on record to prove his guilt
beyond reasonable doubt.

Ruling:
NO Merit in the Appeal.

When a woman testifies that she has been raped, she says in effect all that is necessary to show that rape was
committed, for no young and decent Filipino woman would publicly admit that she has been criminally ravished unless that
is the truth, for her natural instinct is to protect her honor.

Dr. Feliciano Velasco, medical officer of the Roxas Palawan Medicare Community Hospital, who examined the
complainant, opined that this was the first time she had sexual intercourse because the lacerations on the hymen were
fresh.

The appellant contends, however, that the crime of Rape was not committed because no force or intimidation was
employed, i.e., no external injuries or bruises or scratches were found on the complainant's body, despite her testimony
that she was dragged to the bushes, and that the complainant did not offer tenacious and spirited resistance to the assault
on her.

The absence of physical injuries on the complainant's body does not, of itself, negate the complainant's testimony that she
was raped; nor does it make the complainant a willing partner in the sex act. The victim need not kick, bite, hit, slap or
scratch with her fingernails the offender to successfully claim that she had been raped. It is enough that coition was
undertaken against her will. It is sufficient that the carnal knowledge was done after the woman yielded because of an
authentic apprehension of a real fear of immediate death or great bodily harm. In this case, there is evidence that the
offended girl yielded to the carnal desires of the appellant for fear that he might kill her since, according to complainant,
the appellant had threatened her with death and made menacing gestures as if to draw a weapon. It is this same fear that
must have prevented her from making an outcry or reporting the outrage to her uncle

The force or violence required in rape cases is relative. When applied it need not be too overpowering or irresistible. What
is essential is that the force used is sufficient to consummate the purpose which the offender had in mind, or to bring about
the desired result. In using force, it is not even necessary that the offender is armed with a weapon, as the use of a weapon
serves only to increase the penalty. Intimidation can be addressed to the mind as well. In sum, the absence of external
signs or physical injuries does not negate the commission of the crime of rape.
This court consistently held that the testimony of a rape victim as to who abused her is credible where she has no motive
to testify falsely against the accused.

Finally, as regards to the inconsistent testimonies of the victim, ie (declaring that she bit the accused and later on cross
examination denying the same, stating that she felt no ejaculation when semen was then found in her vagina). These alleged
contradictory statements are not fatal as they refer to relatively minor details, and they are to be expected from uncoached
witnesses. They do not affect, nor can they prevail over the positive identification of the appellant as the rapist. As repeatedly
held by the Court, the discrepancies and inconsistencies in the testimony of prosecution witnesses which refer to minor
details do not impair the probative value of their testimony