G.R. No. 123099 February 11, 1999.
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. CRISANTO OLIVER, accused-appellant.

FACTS

On January 10, 1995, Erlinda G. Olivario filed a Complaint charging Crisanto Oliver with rape. An Information was filed alleging that on or about January 8, 1995, at 8:00 p.m. in Barangay Tandarura, Ligao, Albay, the accused, by means of violence and intimidation, willfully had carnal knowledge of the complainant against her will. The accused pleaded not guilty. After trial, the Regional Trial Court of Ligao, Albay, convicted him of rape and sentenced him to reclusion perpetua and to pay moral damages. The accused appealed.
The prosecution’s version, as presented by the OSG, states that on the evening of January 8, 1995, Erlinda Olivario answered the call of nature behind her house. Afterward, while her jogging pants and panty were still rolled down to her knees as she headed to the kitchen to wash, the accused suddenly came from behind, embraced her, and dragged her about ten meters to a grassy area. There, he pushed her down, pulled off her pants and panty, used the jogging pants to wrap her head and cover her face, mounted her, and had sexual intercourse with her. Afterward, he taunted her to choose between life and death before fleeing. Erlinda, half-naked, ran to her mother-in-law’s house to report the rape. A medical examination on January 10, 1995, revealed abrasions on her face and that her vagina introitus admitted two fingers, but no lacerations were noted, and a vaginal smear was done.
The defense presented alibi. The accused claimed that from 8:00 to 9:00 p.m. on January 8, 1995, he was at home entertaining guests for a barangay fiesta, and from around 9:30 p.m. to 11:00 p.m., he was at the barangay pavilion watching a dance. His witnesses, Tirso Pagayonan and Bernardo Ros, corroborated that they were with him at his house and at the pavilion during those times.

ISSUE

The issues are: (1) whether the victim-witness is credible, and (2) whether the defense of alibi is worthy of belief.

RULING

The Supreme Court denied the appeal and affirmed the conviction. The Court reiterated the doctrines that: (1) the trial court’s assessment of witness credibility is entitled to great respect; (2) the presence of spermatozoa is not necessary to prove rape; and (3) alibi is a weak defense and cannot overcome positive identification.
On the first issue, the Court found the victim’s testimony to be clear, consistent, and straightforward, detailing the attack, the use of her pants to cover her face, the sexual intercourse, and the subsequent threat. The Court rejected the defense’s arguments that her bruises were inconsistent, that she could not have identified her assailant, that there was no evidence of violence or resistance, and that the absence of spermatozoa negated rape. The medical findings of abrasions were consistent with the use of force, and the absence of sperm does not disprove penetration, as rape is consummated by the mere touching of the male organ to the female organ.
On the second issue, the Court held that alibi cannot prevail over the positive identification by the victim, who knew the accused as a fellow barangay resident. For alibi to succeed, the accused must demonstrate it was physically impossible for him to be at the crime scene. The accused’s claimed whereabouts, being only 300 meters away from the victim’s house, did not constitute physical impossibility.
The trial court’s decision was affirmed.