G.R. No. L-25486 April 28, 1983
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff, vs. SALVADOR GAMAYON, ANGEL ACERA, ALFREDO MAPUTE, ALFREDO ESCALAÑA and ANDRES SAJOL, accused.

FACTS

The accused were charged with robbery with less serious physical injuries for allegedly conspiring to attack Mauro Gomez at Gahub Bridge in Gingoog City on the evening of October 12, 1964. The information stated that they inflicted fist blows on Gomez, resulting in injuries requiring 7 to 12 days of medical attendance, and stole seven pesos from him. After trial, the Court of First Instance found all five accused guilty. Four accused withdrew their appeals, leaving only Andres Sajol to prosecute the instant appeal.
Sajol raised three errors on appeal: first, that the City Fiscal’s failure to conduct a preliminary investigation deprived him of due process; second, that the prosecution failed to prove the elements of the crime; and third, that his guilt was not proven beyond reasonable doubt. The prosecution’s evidence established that police responded to a report of harassment at the bridge and encountered the injured victim, Gomez, who identified Sajol and his group as his assailants. A witness, Toribio Manguiran, also positively identified Sajol at the scene, which was illuminated by fluorescent lights.

ISSUE

The core issues are: (1) whether the absence of a preliminary investigation by the City Fiscal constituted a reversible error and a deprivation of due process; and (2) whether the evidence was sufficient to prove Sajol’s guilt beyond reasonable doubt for the crime charged.

RULING

The Supreme Court affirmed the conviction, finding no merit in the assigned errors. On the procedural issue, the Court clarified that the information filed by the City Fiscal was for the purpose of initiating proceedings so the city judge could conduct a preliminary examination for the issuance of an arrest warrant, as per Section 87 of Republic Act 296. The subsequent preliminary investigation was properly conducted by the city court under Section 10, Rule 112 of the Rules of Court, not by the fiscal. The record showed hearings were scheduled with notice, but Sajol’s counsel opted to file motions to quash and dismiss instead of presenting evidence. Thus, Sajol was not deprived of due process as he had the opportunity to be heard.
On the substantive issues, the Court found the evidence sufficient for conviction. The positive identification of Sajol by the victim, Mauro Gomez, and an eyewitness, Toribio Manguiran, was credible and reliable, given the illumination at the bridge. The defense of alibi was rejected as uncorroborated and weak against the positive identifications. The Court also noted the presumption of regularity in the performance of duty by the police officers involved. While the Solicitor General noted the appeal involved factual questions typically for the Court of Appeals, the Supreme Court retained jurisdiction to avoid further delay, as the appellant himself brought the appeal directly to it, and the determination of evidentiary sufficiency can become a question of law. The decision of the lower court was affirmed in its entirety.