G.R. No. L-20200 October 28, 1966
THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff and appellee, vs. LIBERATO GAGUI, defendant and appellant.

FACTS

Liberato Gagui, Arsenio Mañgila, Angel de la Cruz, and an unidentified person (William Doe) were charged with robbery with rape and less serious physical injuries in the Court of First Instance of Pampanga. Angel de la Cruz pleaded guilty. Mañgila and Gagui stood trial and were found guilty of the complex crime of robbery with rape, complexed with less serious physical injuries under Article 294(2) in relation to Article 48 of the Revised Penal Code. Each was sentenced to an indeterminate penalty of 14 years and 8 months to 20 years of reclusion temporal, with accessories, and ordered to indemnify the spouses Benito Sarmiento and Patrocinia Millares jointly and severally in the sum of P96.80, plus costs. Mañgila accepted the sentence; Gagui appealed to the Court of Appeals, which certified the appeal to the Supreme Court because the proper penalty was reclusion perpetua.
The prosecution evidence established that on June 26, 1955, at about 11:00 PM, four men (including Gagui) arrived at the hut of Benito Sarmiento and Patrocinia Millares in Lubao, Pampanga. They requested to cook fish and asked for rice. After eating, three (Gagui, Cruz, and Doe) took Sarmiento outside near a fishpond dike, demanded money, frisked him, took his and his wife’s watches (valued at P50), and then assaulted him with a bamboo club and stabbing, causing injuries that required a month of hospitalization. Meanwhile, Mañgila remained in the hut, threatened Patrocinia with death to obtain a trunk key, and looted belongings. Subsequently, Gagui and his three companions each raped Patrocinia at knifepoint. The loot included clothing and cash totaling P96.80. Exequiel Apostol testified that at about 9:00 PM that night, he saw Gagui and his companions in a banca near a fishpond in Lubao/Sexmoan. Gagui signed two affidavits admitting his presence at the crime scene but shifting blame to his companions.
Gagui raised the defense of alibi, claiming he was confined in jail in Orani, Bataan, at the time, supported by a police blotter entry. He also argued his affidavits were involuntary and that the prosecution evidence was unnatural and improbable.

ISSUE

1. Whether the prosecution evidence was unnatural and improbable, thus insufficient to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt.
2. Whether the trial court erred in rejecting Gagui’s defense of alibi and in considering the police blotter as hearsay.
3. Whether Gagui’s affidavits were involuntary and invalid.
4. Whether Gagui should be acquitted.

RULING

The Supreme Court affirmed the conviction but modified the penalty.
1. The prosecution evidence was not unnatural or improbable. Patrocinia’s conduct (staying in a corner breastfeeding and not crying for help initially) was understandable, as her husband had allayed her suspicions, and no overt threat had yet occurred. The positive identification of Gagui by the victims (Benito Sarmiento and Patrocinia Millares) and witness Exequiel Apostol, under adequate lighting and prolonged exposure, was credible.
2. The defense of alibi cannot prevail over positive identification. The police blotter was properly disregarded as hearsay, as the entry was based on a report to the preparing officer, and the chief of police who signed it was not presented to authenticate it or for cross-examination.
3. Gagui’s affidavits were voluntary. Fiscal Eleno Kahayon testified he read the contents part by part to Gagui, who affirmed their truth before signing, witnessed by Sgt. Pablo Valdez. No credible evidence of force was presented.
4. Gagui’s guilt was proven beyond reasonable doubt. The crime committed was robbery with rape under Article 294(2) of the Revised Penal Code, punishable by reclusion temporal in its medium period to reclusion perpetua. Aggravating circumstances of nighttime, dwelling place, and abuse of superior strength were present, with no mitigating circumstances. Thus, the penalty must be imposed in its maximum period. The Supreme Court modified the penalty to reclusion perpetua with its accessory penalties. The judgment was affirmed in all other respects. Costs were imposed on appellant.