G.R. No. L-3723; April 27, 1951
THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. ANGEL GUTIERREZ, ET AL., defendants. ANGEL GUTIERREZ, defendant-appellant.

FACTS

In the early morning of May 5, 1948, armed malefactors broke into the house of Ong San (also referred to as Julian) in Pasig, Rizal. Ong San and his wife, Ko Leong, were shot and died from their wounds. The robbers took P2,000 in cash. Angel Gutierrez, along with four unidentified individuals, was charged with robbery with multiple homicide. Gutierrez was convicted and sentenced to reclusion perpetua, with indemnity and costs. He appealed. The prosecution’s evidence consisted of: (1) the testimony of Vidal Salazar, a neighbor who saw two men fleeing, recognized Gutierrez when he looked up and fired at Salazar, but initially withheld the identification out of fear until after Gutierrez’s arrest; (2) the testimony of Bonifacio de los Reyes, another neighbor who saw two men emerge from the kitchen and recognized Gutierrez’s face but did not report it until the trial; and (3) an extrajudicial confession (Exhibit “Q”) of Gutierrez, taken by Lt. Benedicto T. Potenciano and sworn to before Clerk of Court Severo Abellera, detailing his and his named companions’ planning and execution of the robbery and the shooting of the spouses. Gutierrez repudiated the confession, claiming it was obtained through torture (water-cure), and presented an alibi that he was employed and slept at the Manila Landscape Inc. in Quezon City on the night of the crime, though only his own testimony and payroll records showing daytime work, but not his nighttime whereabouts, supported this.

ISSUE

Whether the guilt of Angel Gutierrez for the crime of robbery with multiple homicide has been established beyond reasonable doubt.

RULING

Yes. The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of conviction. The Court found the testimonies of the two eyewitnesses credible, as they had prior acquaintance with Gutierrez, and the circumstances (early morning with bright stars) allowed for recognition; their initial silence was sufficiently explained by fear and the common reluctance to get involved. The Court also found the extrajudicial confession to bear the stamp of truth and to have been freely given, noting the lack of credibility in the torture claim and the detailed safeguards taken during its execution before the clerk of court. The alibi defense, supported only by Gutierrez’s own testimony regarding his whereabouts after working hours, was insufficient to preclude his participation in the crime. The evidence established Gutierrez’s guilt beyond reasonable doubt.