G.R. No. L-52017 October 27, 1986
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. PEPITO GAPASIN and CALIXTO MATIAS, accused-appellants.

FACTS

On the evening of July 23, 1972, in Barrio Sinamar, Roxas, Isabela, armed men pretending to be members of Task Force Lawin entered the house of spouses Eusebio and Loreta de Leon. After eating, they took Eusebio away. Several men then returned, robbed the house of cash and valuables, and took Loreta to a hut where she was raped by three men, including accused-appellant Pepito Gapasin. Accused-appellant Calixto Matias was present and stood guard during the rape. Loreta positively identified both appellants as former barriomates. The following morning, the body of Eusebio was found nearby with fatal head trauma and his hands tied.
The defense consisted of alibi. Gapasin claimed he was at a different barrio attending a dance, while Matias alleged he was at home. The trial court convicted both appellants of the complex crime of robbery with homicide and rape, imposing the death penalty. The case was elevated to the Supreme Court for automatic review.

ISSUE

The core issue is whether the guilt of appellants Pepito Gapasin and Calixto Matias for the complex crime of robbery with homicide and rape was proven beyond reasonable doubt.

RULING

The Supreme Court affirmed the conviction. The Court found the testimony of Loreta de Leon to be credible, positive, and consistent. She had sufficient opportunity to identify the appellants, recognizing Gapasin when his mask slipped during the meal and later identifying Matias at the scene of the rape. Her immediate report to barrio officials and consistent identification throughout the investigation bolstered her reliability. The medical findings corroborated the rape and the violent death of her husband.
The Court rejected the defenses of alibi as weak and unsubstantiated. It held that alibi cannot prevail over the positive identification of the accused by the victim, especially where there was no physical impossibility for the appellants to have been at the crime scene. The collective actions of the armed group—robbing the house, killing Eusebio, and raping Loreta—constituted a continuous series of acts with a single criminal purpose. All participants, including those who did not personally inflict every act, were liable as principals by direct participation or by indispensable cooperation. The penalty of death was properly imposed, as the crime was attended by the aggravating circumstances of dwelling, nighttime, and band, with no mitigating circumstances. The Court modified the indemnity awards but otherwise affirmed the judgment in toto.