GR 122979; (February, 2000) (Digest)
G.R. No. 122979 February 2, 2000
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. FELIMON ALIPAYO, DANILO MACABALITAO, JELLIE LIPA, and VIRGILIO TAMAYO, accused-appellants.
FACTS
On the evening of February 13, 1994, private complainants Ornella Gellongos and Alexis Barrientos were walking along A. Bonifacio Avenue in Quezon City when accused-appellants, all armed with knives, accosted them from behind. The group was forced to a nearby mini-park where appellants robbed them of cash, jewelry, and other personal items. Thereafter, appellants Alipayo and Macabalitao dragged Ornella away. While one held a weapon to her neck, the other raped her, and then they exchanged roles. Subsequently, appellants Tamayo and Lipa also took turns raping Ornella. Alexis managed to escape and sought help from barangay officials.
The defense of the appellants consisted of alibi and denial. They claimed they were elsewhere at the time of the incident. The trial court, however, found the testimonies of the prosecution witnesses, particularly the clear and consistent identification by the victims, to be credible and convincing. All accused were positively identified in police line-ups and were also pointed out by their co-accused during police investigations.
ISSUE
Whether the guilt of all accused-appellants for the special complex crime of Robbery with Rape was proven beyond reasonable doubt.
RULING
Yes, the guilt of all accused-appellants was proven beyond reasonable doubt. The Supreme Court affirmed the trial court’s decision, imposing the penalty of death. The Court meticulously reviewed the records and found no reason to overturn the factual findings and credibility assessments of the trial judge, who had the direct opportunity to observe the witnesses. The positive identification by the victims, who had a clear view of their assailants during the well-lit incident, prevailed over the weak defenses of alibi and denial. The Court ruled that for alibi to prosper, it must be demonstrated that the accused was so far away that it was physically impossible for him to have been at the scene of the crime, which appellants failed to establish.
The legal logic is anchored on the principle that in crimes against chastity, the testimony of the victim, if credible, is sufficient to sustain a conviction. Ornella’s detailed and unwavering account, corroborated by Alexis’s testimony and the medico-legal findings, constituted proof of the highest order. The Court also found the presence of conspiracy, as all appellants acted in concert to achieve a common criminal purpose—first to rob, and then to sexually assault the victim. Each rapist is liable not only for his own act but for the acts of his co-conspirators, making all of them equally guilty of the complex crime. The robbery and the multiple rapes were deemed a single, continuous criminal transaction, justifying the imposition of the supreme penalty under the law at the time.