G.R. Nos. L-67347-48 September 25, 1986
People of the Philippines, plaintiff-appellee, vs. Wilfredo Parilla, Alias “Willy,” accused-appellant.

FACTS

The accused-appellant, Wilfredo Parilla, was convicted by the Regional Trial Court of Davao on two counts of rape against Flora Batulan, then twelve years old, and sentenced to reclusion perpetua for each count, to be served simultaneously, with moral damages. The prosecution evidence established that on April 12, 1980, at twilight, Flora, along with her sister and two other young companions, was walking home after delivering fish. Appellant, a 45-year-old neighbor, followed them, threw stones, and chased them. He caught Flora, who was weakened from a recent illness, covered her mouth, threatened her life, and dragged her into the bushes where he raped her twice, causing her to lose consciousness after the first assault. Upon regaining consciousness and returning home, she immediately reported the crime to her aunt and father.
Appellant denied the charges, presenting an alibi and imputing the crime to his cousin, Noling Dimpas. He claimed he was drinking tuba at a camarin with others during the incident. He alleged that the barangay captain informed him Dimpas was the perpetrator and that he was later coerced by authorities. A witness, Danilo Ignacio, supported the alibi but admitted being instructed by appellant on his testimony.

ISSUE

Whether the prosecution proved the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt, and whether the trial court erred in not crediting the defense of alibi and denial.

RULING

The Supreme Court affirmed the conviction. The prosecution successfully proved appellant’s guilt beyond reasonable doubt through the credible and consistent testimonies of the victim and eyewitnesses. Flora Batulan positively identified appellant as her assailant, noting she knew him well as a neighbor and could clearly see him despite the twilight, as it was still bright. Her immediate disclosure to family members and subsequent identification to police reinforced her credibility. Her testimony was corroborated by her sister, Corazon, and cousin, Alexander Cenita, who witnessed appellant throwing stones, grabbing Flora, and dragging her into the bushes. Alexander specifically described appellant’s red shirt and black pants, contradicting the claim of darkness.
The Court rejected appellant’s alibi and denial as untrustworthy. For alibi to prevail, it must be shown that the accused was so far away that he could not have been at the crime scene. Here, the camarin where appellant claimed to be was within the same barangay, failing to meet this requirement. His narrative about his cousin being the real culprit was deemed a fabrication, especially since he allegedly withheld the cousin’s whereabouts despite knowing he was nearby. The supporting witness’s admission of being coached further undermined the defense. No improper motive was attributed to the prosecution witnesses, whose testimonies are accorded full faith and credit. Thus, appellant’s guilt was established beyond peradventure of doubt.