G.R. No. 149808 ; November 27, 2003
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, appellee, vs. BENJAMIN LOPEZ, appellant.

FACTS

On August 16, 1997, at around 11:00 p.m., complainant Louvella Gillen and three companions were resting at a high school after a fiesta. Appellant Benjamin Lopez, armed with a long firearm, suddenly appeared. He pointed the gun at the group, threatened to shoot Louvella’s companions, and ordered them to leave. Forced to flee, they left Louvella behind. Appellant then marched Louvella at gunpoint to a nearby banana plantation. Despite her pleas and resistance, he pressed a knife to her back, forcibly undressed her, and succeeded in having carnal knowledge with her. A medical examination two days later confirmed recent abrasions consistent with sexual assault.
Appellant denied the accusation and interposed the defense of alibi. He claimed he was at a singing contest near a basketball court from 7:00 p.m. until midnight and later went home with friends. Defense witnesses corroborated his presence at the contest area. They also testified that they later met a distraught Louvella, who allegedly stated she was raped by an unidentified man wearing a bonnet, contradicting her judicial declaration.

ISSUE

Whether the trial court erred in convicting appellant based on the victim’s identification and in rejecting his defense of alibi.

RULING

The Supreme Court affirmed the conviction. The Court upheld the trial court’s assessment of Louvella Gillen’s credibility and her positive identification of appellant. The alleged inconsistency—that she identified him by his physique, moustache, and voice despite only learning his name after the incident—was not fatal. The Court reasoned that recognition by voice was plausible as appellant and Louvella’s mother worked in the same plantation, and victims naturally observe their assailant’s features. The factual findings of the trial court on witness credibility are accorded great respect and were not shown to be flawed.
Furthermore, the defense of alibi failed. For alibi to prosper, the accused must demonstrate not only his presence elsewhere but also the physical impossibility of being at the crime scene. Here, appellant was established to be only 100 to 200 meters away from the rape location, and the banana plantation was a mere five-minute walk from the basketball court. This proximity negated any physical impossibility. The positive identification by the victim, coupled with the weak alibi, established guilt beyond reasonable doubt. The penalty of reclusion perpetua and the awards of civil indemnity and moral damages were affirmed.