G.R. No. 207943 . September 11, 2017.
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, VS. ROBERT BALANZA, ACCUSED-APPELLANT.

FACTS

The accused-appellant, Robert Balanza, was charged with the rape of AAA, a 14-year-old minor, in relation to Republic Act No. 7610 . The Information alleged that on October 7, 2006, in Cebu City, Balanza, conspiring with another individual, used force and intimidation to have carnal knowledge of AAA against her will. The co-accused, a 13-year-old minor, was exempted from criminal liability under the Juvenile Justice and Welfare Act. The prosecution’s version, as testified by AAA, stated that she was forcibly taken by members of a fraternity, including Balanza, to a nipa hut and later to a cornfield. There, Balanza forcibly removed her pants and inserted his penis into her vagina. After he finished, the minor co-accused also raped her.
For his defense, Balanza denied the accusation and presented an alibi. He claimed that at the time of the alleged incident, he was at a neighbor’s house located 100 meters away from his own home, in the company of several individuals from 7:00 p.m. to 10:00 p.m. He insisted he was not at the scene of the crime and could not have committed the act. The Regional Trial Court found Balanza guilty beyond reasonable doubt of rape in relation to R.A. No. 7610 and sentenced him to reclusion perpetua. The Court of Appeals affirmed the conviction with modifications to the damages awarded.

ISSUE

The core issue for resolution is whether the prosecution established the identity of Robert Balanza as the perpetrator of the rape beyond reasonable doubt, thereby overcoming his defense of alibi and warranting his conviction.

RULING

The Supreme Court denied the appeal and affirmed the conviction with modifications. The Court held that the prosecution successfully established Balanza’s identity and guilt beyond reasonable doubt. AAA gave a clear, consistent, and credible testimony detailing how Balanza raped her. She positively identified him in open court, noting she had known him prior to the incident as they were neighbors. The Court emphasized that the assessment of the trial court, which observed the witness’s demeanor, is accorded great respect and is binding unless substantial facts were overlooked.
The defense of alibi was correctly rejected. For alibi to prosper, the accused must prove not only that he was elsewhere when the crime was committed but also that it was physically impossible for him to have been at the crime scene. Balanza failed to meet this stringent requirement, as the neighbor’s house where he claimed to be was merely 100 meters away from the locus criminis, making it not physically impossible for him to have been present. His alibi, uncorroborated by credible witnesses, could not prevail over the positive identification by the victim. The crime was duly proven as rape through force and intimidation under Article 266-A of the Revised Penal Code, qualified by the victim’s minority under R.A. No. 7610 . The penalty of reclusion perpetua was affirmed. The Court increased the awards for civil indemnity, moral damages, and exemplary damages to P75,000.00 each, all with legal interest.