Philippine Supreme Court Resolutions > Year 2012 > February 2012 Resolutions > [G.R. No. 188852 : February 15, 2012] PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, APPELLEE, v. MERVIN MAGLALANG Y LAGMAN, APPELLANT. :

Please take notice that the Court, First Division, issued a Resolution dated 15 February 2012 which reads as follows:cralaw

"G.R. No. 188852 - People of the Philippines, Appellee, v. Mervin Maglalang y Lagman, Appellant.- On March 3, 2009, the Court of Appeals (CA) affirmed^[1] the conviction of the appellant under the decision^[2] rendered on September 28, 2007 by the Regional Trial Court, Branch 45, in San Fernando City, Pampanga (RTC), finding him guilty of rape with homicide committed against the 16-year-old AAA inside her house situated in Barangay San Isidro, Minalin, Pangasinan, and upholding the imposition of the penalty of reclusion perpetua and the awards of P100,000.00 as civil indemnity, P75,000.00 as moral damages, and P85,000.00 as actual damages.

In his appeal to the Court, the appellant asserts that the CA thereby erred. He continues to insist on his denial of the accusation, and on his alibi, arguing that no direct evidence establishing that he had raped and killed AAA was presented. He denied having been at the crime scene at the time of the commission of the crime, and reiterated that he had been then in the house of his friend Lordan Magpayo situated in Barangay Lourdes, Minalin, Pangasinan.

A thorough consideration of the records shows that the RTC rightly rejected the appellant's denial and alibi; and that, consequently, the CA did not err in affirming the conviction.

The accounts of the State's witnesses on the appellant's culpability were strong and certain. They showed that he had arrived at AAA's house before the discovery of the crime, and had parked his motorcycle near AAA's house; that he and AAA had been the only persons seen inside the house; that AAA's brother had meanwhile arrived at the house and, upon noticing the locked main gate, had knocked and shouted, but the appellant, without clothes and perspiring, had peeped through the window and talked with AAA's brother, refusing to unlock the gate despite demands from AAA's brother and the neighbors; that he had come out only after seeing his own relatives outside the house, and had rushed to board his motorcycle and had immediately sped off; and that the ravished and lifeless body of AAA had been found inside the house immediately thereafter.^[3] Such evidence presented against the appellant, although circumstantial in character, sufficed to support his conviction, because it led to a fair and reasonable conclusion that he, and no other, had committed the crime (People v. Pascual, G.R. No. 172326, January 19, 2009, 576 SCRA 242, 251-252). Indeed, the State proved his guilt beyond reasonable doubt.

In contrast, the appellant did not show that the State's witnesses harbored any ill-will or had bad motives against him. Thereby, their positive declarations against him prevailed over his unsubstantiated denial.

The Court considers the appellant's alibi of being in his friend's house in Barangay Lourdes when the crime was committed instead of inside AAA's house in Barangay San Isidro bereft of any worth. He admitted that the distance between the two places was only about a kilometer; and that he could traverse that distance on foot in 30 minutes. Obviously enough, he could traverse that distance in a much shorter period on board his motorcycle. Thus, he did not discharge his burden of establishing the physical impossibility of being in the place of the crime at the time of its commission, an indispensable anchor for his alibi (People v. Ejandra, G.R. No. 134203, May 27, 2004, 429 SCRA 364, 379; People v. Bracamonte, G.R. No. 95939, June 17, 1996, 257 SCRA 380, 384).cralaw

WHEREFORE, the Court AFFIRMS the decision promulgated on March 3, 2009 finding Mervin Maglalang y Lagman guilty beyond reasonable doubt of rape with homicide and sentencing him to suffer reclusion perpetua, subject to the modification that he is ordered to pay P50,000.00 as exemplary damages pursuant to prevailing jurisprudence (People v. Bascugin, G.R. No. 184704, June 30, 2009, 591 SCRA 453, 465), in addition to the P100,000.00 as civil indemnity, P75,000.00 as moral damages, and P85,000.00 as actual damages, plus interest of 6% per annum from finality of this decision.

The appellant shall pay the costs of suit."

SO ORDERED.

  Very truly yours,

  (Sgd.) EDGAR O. ARICHETA
Division Clerk of Court

Endnotes:

---

^[1] CA Decision, rollo,  p. 11, penned by Associate Justice Ricardo R. Rosario, with Associate Justices Edgardo P. Cruz and Vicente S.E. Veloso, concurring.

^[2] CA rollo, pp. 7-33.

^[3] Rollo, pp. 7-8.