GR 96249; (February, 1997) (Digest)
G.R. No. 96249 February 19, 1997
THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. ALIPIO QUIAMCO and EDDIE AGIPO, accused-appellants.
FACTS
Accused-appellants Alipio Quiamco and Eddie Agipo were charged with the rape of Ederliza Pepito. The prosecution alleged that on July 12, 1985, at around 10:00 PM, the appellants forcibly entered the victim’s house in Placer, Masbate. While Alipio Quiamco held a scythe to her neck, Eddie Agipo removed her underwear and inserted his finger into her vagina. Subsequently, Quiamco had sexual intercourse with her, after which Agipo followed and raped her twice. The victim lost consciousness due to the pain. The crime was witnessed by Maria Pepito, who corroborated the victim’s testimony.
The defense interposed alibi. Quiamco claimed he was fishing approximately 20 kilometers away and returned the next morning. Agipo testified he was planting rice about 19 kilometers away and returned days later. They suggested the complaint was motivated by a trivial dispute over Quiamco bathing in the victim’s well. The trial court convicted both appellants of rape and sentenced them to reclusion perpetua, ordering them to indemnify the victim.
ISSUE
Whether the trial court erred in convicting the accused-appellants based on the credibility of the prosecution witnesses and in rejecting their defense of alibi.
RULING
The Supreme Court affirmed the conviction, modifying only the indemnity. The Court upheld the trial court’s assessment of witness credibility. It rejected the appellants’ argument that the victim’s failure to immediately shout for help rendered her testimony implausible. The Court found her reaction natural and reasonable given the immediate threat of a scythe to her neck and the appellants’ warning to kill her if she shouted. The positive identification by the victim and her witness, under the illumination of a kerosene lamp, was deemed credible and sufficient.
The defense of alibi was correctly disregarded. Alibi cannot prevail over the positive identification of the accused by credible witnesses. The Court also noted that the defense failed to prove it was physically impossible for the appellants to be at the crime scene. Furthermore, the alleged motive for the complaint—a dispute over bath water—was deemed too petty and insufficient to explain why a young mother would fabricate a grave charge and subject herself to the ordeal of a public trial. The decision of the trial judge, though penned by one who did not hear all testimonies, was valid as it was based on the complete records, which fully supported the conviction. The indemnity was increased to P50,000.00 in accordance with prevailing jurisprudence.