GR 130601; (December, 2000) (Digest)
G.R. No. 130601 ; December 4, 2000
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. RAFAEL DIOPITA y GUZMAN, accused-appellant.
FACTS
On the evening of April 16, 1995, Dominga Pikit-pikit was walking home in Davao City when accused-appellant Rafael Diopita y Guzman accosted her. He dragged her to a cornfield, robbed her of her jewelry and cash, and then raped her. The victim positively identified Diopita, noting the illumination from the full moon allowed her a clear view of his face. After the assault, she reported the incident, leading to a police investigation where a slipper was recovered at the scene. Diopita was later identified by the victim in a police line-up, and the recovered slipper fit him.
The defense presented an alibi, claiming Diopita was attending a Bible study session with fellow Jehovah’s Witnesses at the time of the crime. Several witnesses corroborated his presence and testified to his good moral character as a ministerial servant. The trial court, however, convicted Diopita of Robbery with Rape, sentencing him to reclusion perpetua and ordering him to pay damages.
ISSUE
Whether the trial court erred in convicting accused-appellant of Robbery with Rape despite his defense of alibi and the testimonies of his character witnesses.
RULING
The Supreme Court affirmed the conviction. The defense of alibi cannot prevail over the positive and categorical identification of the accused by the victim. The Court found the victim’s testimony clear, straightforward, and credible, especially as she had ample opportunity to see her attacker under the bright moonlight of a near-full moon. No ill motive was shown for her to falsely accuse Diopita.
The Court emphasized that alibi is inherently weak and easily fabricated. The precise timing provided by the defense witnesses was deemed self-serving. Furthermore, the physical evidence—the slipper recovered at the scene that fit the accused—corroborated the victim’s account. The defense of good moral character is also unavailing against positive identification. The crime of Robbery with Rape was sufficiently proven, as the robbery and rape constituted a continuous criminal act. The penalty of reclusion perpetua was appropriate. The Court modified the damages, adding an award of ₱50,000.00 as civil indemnity ex delicto, which is mandatory in rape convictions and distinct from moral damages.