G.R. No. 179748 ; October 2, 2009
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Appellee, vs. FEBLONELYBIRTH T. RUBIO AND JOAN T. AMARO, Appellants.

FACTS

Appellants Feblonelybirth Rubio and Joan Amaro were charged with rape with homicide. The prosecution evidence established that on July 21, 1999, at around 6:00 a.m., eyewitnesses Magdalena Olpos and her son Pepe heard shouts for help. They proceeded towards the source and saw appellants Rubio and Amaro separately fleeing the area, with Rubio walking fast towards a sugarcane plantation and Amaro running towards his house. Pepe saw both appellants carrying bloodied hunting knives. Another witness, Perfecto Teves, also saw appellants running towards Amaro’s house after being alerted to the incident.
Upon reaching the scene, Magdalena and Pepe discovered the body of the victim, AAA, with multiple stab wounds, her legs spread apart, and her panties pulled down. A post-mortem examination confirmed hymenal lacerations and the presence of spermatozoa in the vaginal canal, corroborating sexual abuse. The cause of death was hypovolemic shock from the multiple stab wounds. The appellants interposed the defense of alibi, claiming they were elsewhere at the time.

ISSUE

Whether the guilt of appellants for the crime of rape with homicide was proven beyond reasonable doubt.

RULING

Yes, the Supreme Court affirmed the conviction. The Court found the testimonies of prosecution witnesses credible, consistent, and sufficient to establish appellants’ guilt. The positive identification by eyewitnesses Magdalena and Pepe Olpos, who saw appellants fleeing the crime scene with bloodied weapons immediately after hearing the victim’s cries for help, was accorded full weight. Their testimonies were corroborated by the physical evidence and the medical findings of rape and homicide.
The defense of alibi was correctly rejected as it could not prevail over the positive identification by credible witnesses. The Court emphasized that for alibi to prosper, the accused must prove not only that they were elsewhere when the crime was committed but that it was physically impossible for them to have been at the crime scene. Appellants failed to meet this burden. Furthermore, the flight of appellants from the scene is indicative of guilt. The totality of evidence, including the witnesses’ straightforward narration and the medico-legal findings, formed an unbroken chain leading to the reasonable conclusion that appellants, conspiring and helping one another, committed the crime. The prosecution successfully discharged its duty to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt.