G.R. No. L-27184 May 21, 1974
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. RUPERTO AQUINO, alias “Pitong,” et al., defendants. RUPERTO AQUINO, alias “Pitong,” defendant-appellant.

FACTS

The accused-appellant Ruperto Aquino, along with Manuel Mangsat and Jose Fabro, was charged with robbery with homicide for the killing of 84-year-old Victoria Costes Vda. de Mendinueto and the taking of P32.00 from her house in Binalonan, Pangasinan, on February 28, 1966. Prior to trial, co-accused Manuel Mangsat withdrew his not guilty plea, pleaded guilty, and was sentenced to reclusion perpetua. The prosecution successfully moved to discharge Jose Fabro from the information to utilize him as a state witness. The trial thus proceeded solely against Aquino.
The prosecution evidence, primarily from state witness Jose Fabro, established that on the morning of the crime, Aquino invited Mangsat and Fabro to accompany him to the victim’s house, claiming she had money from a recent palay sale. Fabro waited below while Aquino and Mangsat entered. Fabro later heard disturbing sounds, after which Aquino and Mangsat descended, with Aquino holding a bloodied knife. Fabro fled in fear. The victim was found dead from stab wounds. Mangsat, in his extra-judicial confession, corroborated Fabro’s account and implicated Aquino as the one who stabbed the victim and took the money. Aquino presented an alibi, supported by testimonies from his mother, wife, and brother.

ISSUE

Whether the guilt of the accused-appellant Ruperto Aquino for the crime of robbery with homicide was proven beyond reasonable doubt.

RULING

Yes, the Supreme Court affirmed the conviction. The Court found Aquino’s guilt established beyond reasonable doubt by the credible and corroborated evidence. The positive testimony of state witness Jose Fabro was deemed credible and was strongly corroborated by the extra-judicial confession of Manuel Mangsat, who had already been convicted for the same crime. The Court applied the doctrine that an extra-judicial confession, while generally evidence only against its maker, can serve as corroborative evidence of another’s participation when consistent with other facts. Here, Mangsat’s detailed confession—including the taking of a bunch of keys later confirmed missing—lent credibility to Fabro’s account and implicated Aquino. The Court rejected Aquino’s defense of alibi as inherently weak, being supported only by biased family witnesses and being unavailing against the positive identification of his participation. The crime was aggravated by its commission in the victim’s dwelling. However, for lack of the necessary votes for capital punishment, the penalty of reclusion perpetua imposed by the trial court was sustained, with the modification that the civil indemnity was increased to P12,000.00.