G.R. Nos. 124830-31; June 27, 2003
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Appellee, vs. GERARDO “GERRY” EVINA Y PADUAL, Appellant.

FACTS

The appellant, Gerardo Evina, was charged with two counts of rape against his young relative, Ma. Maritess Catcharro. The first incident allegedly occurred on November 3, 1991, inside the Catcharro family’s one-bedroom house in Tacloban City. Maritess, then 11 years old, testified that she was sleeping when the appellant locked the door, gagged her, tied her hands, poked a knife at her, and then had carnal knowledge of her. The second incident allegedly occurred on November 7, 1991, when Maritess was alone at home. The appellant again forced her into the bedroom, used a knife to threaten her, and raped her. The crimes were revealed days later when Maritess, fearing another assault, told her mother. A medical examination revealed positive findings for spermatozoa and pus cells.
The appellant denied the accusations, pleading not guilty and interposing the defense of alibi. He claimed he was working as a porter at a bus terminal during the alleged incidents and that the charges were fabricated by the victim’s family, who allegedly harbored ill will against him. The Regional Trial Court found the appellant guilty of two counts of simple rape and sentenced him to reclusion perpetua for each count, prompting this appeal.

ISSUE

The core issue is whether the prosecution proved the appellant’s guilt for the crime of rape beyond reasonable doubt.

RULING

The Supreme Court affirmed the conviction. The Court found the testimony of the victim, Maritess Catcharro, to be credible, straightforward, and consistent. She provided a detailed and unshaken account of the two harrowing assaults, including the appellant’s use of a knife, his threats to kill her and her family, and the pain she endured. Her young age and the traumatic nature of the events lent credibility to her narrative, and her failure to immediately report the rapes was reasonably explained by her well-grounded fear of the appellant. The medical findings, which the appellant admitted, corroborated her claim of sexual intercourse.
The Court rejected the appellant’s defense of alibi as inherently weak and unsubstantiated. For alibi to prosper, the accused must prove not only that he was elsewhere when the crime was committed but also that it was physically impossible for him to have been at the scene. The appellant failed to do so, as his claimed place of work was merely one kilometer away from the crime scene. His denial could not prevail over the positive and categorical identification by the victim. The qualifying circumstance of use of a deadly weapon was not considered in imposing the penalty, as it was not alleged in the Informations, which only charged simple rape. Thus, the penalty of reclusion perpetua for each count was proper.