G.R. No. 143660; June 5, 2002
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, appellee, vs. BOY DOMINGO, appellant.

FACTS

The prosecution established that around 11:00 p.m. on October 23, 1993, in Santiago City, appellant Boy Domingo and four other armed companions entered the compound of spouses Valentin and Clara Gabertan. Initially claiming to be NPA members, they demanded money and firearms. Valentin recognized appellant, having known him for ten years. After clubbing Valentin into submission, the intruders proceeded to rob the couple of cash and poultry. Subsequently, Joel Temporal pulled Clara out of the house. Appellant and his co-accused took turns raping her on the cogon grass, with appellant personally holding Clara’s hands during the assault before also having carnal knowledge of her.
The defense presented an alibi, claiming appellant was in a different barangay attending a wake during the incident. The trial court convicted appellant of robbery with multiple rape, sentencing him to reclusion perpetua and ordering him to pay damages. Appellant appealed, arguing the prosecution failed to prove his guilt beyond reasonable doubt and questioning the credibility of the witnesses.

ISSUE

Whether the conviction of appellant Boy Domingo for the crime of robbery with multiple rape is proper.

RULING

Yes, the conviction is proper. The Supreme Court affirmed the trial court’s decision, holding that appellant’s alibi could not prevail over the positive and categorical identification made by the victims. The Court emphasized the well-entrenched doctrine that alibi is inherently weak and must yield to positive identification, especially when established by credible witnesses without any ill motive to falsely testify. Both Valentin and Clara consistently identified appellant as one of the perpetrators. Valentin knew appellant for a decade, and Clara provided a detailed account of the rape, specifically naming appellant as one who held her down and subsequently raped her. The Court found their testimonies candid and consistent on material points, thereby deserving full faith and credit.
The Court further ruled that the crime committed was robbery with rape, a special complex crime under Article 294 of the Revised Penal Code. The prosecution proved that the robbery and rape were perpetrated by a band on the same occasion. The penalty imposed by the trial court, reclusion perpetua, was correct as the applicable law at the time of the commission of the crime did not yet prescribe the death penalty for this offense. The award of moral damages to the victims was also sustained. The appeal was dismissed for lack of merit.