G.R. No. 135552 -53. June 21, 2001.
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. ABEL ABACIA and DANILO “Boyet” ALVAREZ, accused, DANILO “Boyet” ALVAREZ, accused-appellant.

FACTS

Accused-appellant Danilo Alvarez and Abel Abacia were charged with two counts of rape before the Regional Trial Court of Surigao City. Only Alvarez was apprehended and pleaded not guilty. The prosecution’s evidence established that on January 5, 1996, private complainant Rosalinda Caday went to Alvarez’s house. Alvarez and Abacia arrived and persuaded her to accompany them to another person’s house. En route, they dragged her to the grounds of the Surigao del Norte National High School, pushed her through an opening in a wall, and brought her to a nearby toilet. Abacia first raped her inside a cubicle while Alvarez stood guard. After Abacia left, Alvarez entered and also raped her. Abacia later returned but relented from raping her again and returned her clothing. Rosalinda reported the incident to her mother and the police. A medical examination revealed healed hymenal lacerations and that she was positive for gonorrhea, which the doctor testified could have resulted from the rape. Alvarez denied the charges and interposed the defense of alibi, claiming he was at the city abattoir and later at the public market during the time of the incident. He also claimed the charge was fabricated due to a dispute over land rental. He presented a doctor who testified he was negative for gonorrhea and a school watchman who noticed nothing unusual. The trial court convicted Alvarez of two counts of rape and sentenced him to reclusion perpetua for each count, plus indemnity. Alvarez appealed, arguing his guilt was not proven beyond reasonable doubt.

ISSUE

Whether the Regional Trial Court erred in not acquitting accused-appellant Danilo Alvarez, i.e., whether his guilt for two counts of rape was proven beyond reasonable doubt.

RULING

The Supreme Court AFFIRMED the conviction with MODIFICATION. The appeal was unmeritorious. The Court held that: (1) A negative plea and filing of an appeal are not proof of innocence but legal mechanisms to contest charges. (2) Non-flight does not necessarily equate to innocence. (3) The defense of alibi was unconvincing as accused-appellant failed to prove it was physically impossible for him to be at the crime scene. The trial court’s factual findings, including the credibility of the complainant’s positive identification and testimony, were upheld. The Court found no reason to disturb these findings. However, in line with prevailing jurisprudence, the Court modified the decision to award moral damages in addition to civil indemnity, given the complainant’s age (19) and the psychological trauma inflicted. Accused-appellant was ordered to pay P50,000.00 as moral damages for each count of rape (total P100,000.00), in addition to the civil indemnity of P50,000.00 for each count.