G.R. No. 136299 ; August 29, 2003
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Appellee, vs. ZOILO MAGALLANES, Appellant.

FACTS

On September 21, 1995, in Kananga, Leyte, appellant Zoilo Magallanes was charged with Rape with Homicide for the death of Maria Nelida Ulan-Ulan. The prosecution’s case primarily rested on the eyewitness account of Deodelfa Ulan-Ulan, who testified that from her house window, she saw appellant call Nelida from a ricefield, borrow her bolo, and then, while Nelida drank from a coconut, box her in the abdomen, rendering her unconscious. Deodelfa witnessed appellant remove Nelida’s pants, perform a sexual act on top of her, and subsequently drag her body and slice her throat with a scythe. The victim’s husband, Prescillano, was later informed of the incident by appellant’s own son, Benjie. An autopsy confirmed sexual intercourse and that death resulted from a massive incised wound on the neck.
The appellant denied the accusation and interposed alibi. He claimed he was at a different location gathering tuba and later traveled to Cebu, only learning of the incident upon his return. He asserted that Deodelfa could not have witnessed the crime from her house due to distance and obstructions.

ISSUE

The core issue for the Supreme Court’s automatic review was whether the prosecution proved the guilt of the appellant for the crime of Rape with Homicide beyond reasonable doubt.

RULING

The Supreme Court affirmed the conviction and the imposition of the death penalty. The Court found the testimony of eyewitness Deodelfa to be credible, natural, and consistent. Her account was corroborated by the physical evidence and the dying declaration conveyed by appellant’s son to the victim’s husband. The Court emphasized that findings of trial courts on witness credibility are accorded great weight, as they are in the best position to observe demeanor. Deodelfa had no ill motive to falsely testify against her neighbor, and her narration withstood rigorous cross-examination.
The Court rejected the appellant’s alibi as inherently weak. For alibi to prosper, the accused must prove not only that he was elsewhere when the crime occurred but that it was physically impossible for him to be at the scene. Appellant failed to establish such impossibility, as the places he mentioned were within the same barangay. His defense was further undermined by the positive identification by a credible eyewitness. The crime qualified as Rape with Homicide under Article 335 of the Revised Penal Code, as amended by Republic Act No. 7659 , warranting the supreme penalty. The Court also affirmed the award of civil indemnity, moral damages, and temperate damages to the victim’s heirs.