G.R. No. 77980 February 27, 1989
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. EDDIE ABAYA, RODRIGO GANDOL and NELSON PASCUA, accused-appellants.

FACTS

The accused-appellants, Eddie Abaya, Rodrigo Gandol, and Nelson Pascua, were charged with Robbery with Rape. The prosecution evidence established that on the night of August 29, 1984, during a typhoon, the three armed men forcibly entered a house in Candon, Ilocos Sur, announced a hold-up, and robbed the occupants. Rodrigo Gandol and Nelson Pascua then successively raped Chita Calibuso inside a room after threatening her with a knife. Eddie Abaya participated in the robbery by taking goods from a store within the house but did not participate in the rape. The victims positively identified all three accused at the police station and during the trial.
The defense consisted of denial and alibi. Nelson Pascua claimed he was in a different barangay, Tamurong, on the afternoon and evening of the crime, attending to an errand and subsequently staying overnight due to the storm. His testimony was uncorroborated. During the trial, his co-accused Eddie Abaya testified for the prosecution, admitting his participation in the robbery and implicating Pascua and Gandol in the rape.

ISSUE

The core issues on appeal were: (1) whether the defense of alibi presented by appellant Nelson Pascua could prevail over the positive identification by the prosecution witnesses; and (2) whether the testimony of a co-accused, Eddie Abaya, is admissible and credible.

RULING

The Supreme Court affirmed the conviction. On the first issue, the Court ruled that the defense of alibi must be rejected. For alibi to prosper, the accused must demonstrate 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 scene of the crime. Here, the barangays of Paypayad (crime scene) and Tamurong (alibi location) were both within the municipality of Candon and were accessible to each other. The Court noted that modern transportation makes travel between nearby places feasible, and the stormy weather did not establish the required physical impossibility. Moreover, Pascua’s alibi was uncorroborated and inherently weak against the clear, positive, and categorical identification by the victims.
On the second issue, the Court held that the testimony of co-accused Eddie Abaya was properly admitted and considered. While testimony from a co-accused is generally viewed with suspicion when it benefits the testifying accused, it may be afforded credence when no such benefit is expected and when it is corroborated by other evidence. Abaya’s testimony was given in open court under cross-examination. Crucially, it was not the sole or key evidence but merely corroborated the already strong and consistent testimonies of the victims, whose positive identification placed all accused at the crime scene. His admissions dovetailed with the details provided by the prosecution witnesses, thereby reinforcing their credibility. Consequently, the trial court’s judgment finding Pascua and Gandol guilty of Robbery with Rape and Abaya guilty of Robbery was affirmed in toto.