People v. Gamayon
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Salvador Gamayon, Angel Acera, Alfredo Mapute, Alfredo Escalaña, and Andres Sajol were charged with robbery with less serious physical injuries. The prosecution alleged that on October 12, 1964, the accused, acting in concert, used violence against Mauro Gomez by punching and kicking him, causing injuries requiring 7 to 12 days of medical attention and preventing him from working. During the assault, they stole P7.00 from his shirt pocket. The crime was committed on Gahub Bridge in Gingoog City. Procedural History: The accused were found guilty by the Court of First Instance of Misamis Oriental and sentenced to an indeterminate sentence and ordered to pay restitution and costs. All five accused appealed this decision. However, four of the accused, Salvador Gamayon, Angel Acera, Alfredo Mapute, and Alfredo Escalaña, subsequently withdrew their appeals. This left Andres Sajol as the sole appellant prosecuting the case before the Supreme Court. The Petition: Andres Sajol, the sole appellant, raised three assignments of error. First, he argued that the lower court erred in not recognizing the City Fiscal's failure to conduct a preliminary investigation as a reversible error and a deprivation of due process. Second, he contended that the prosecution failed to prove the elements of the offense charged. Third, he asserted that the lower court erred in concluding that his guilt was proven beyond a reasonable doubt. The appeal was brought directly to the Supreme Court, with the appellant arguing that the sufficiency of the evidence to convict constitutes a question of law.
Issue(s)
Whether the failure of the City Fiscal to conduct a preliminary investigation constitutes a reversible error and a deprivation of due process. Whether the prosecution failed to prove the elements of the offense charged. Whether the guilt of the accused was proved beyond reasonable doubt.
Ruling
The Supreme Court affirmed the decision of the lower court en toto, finding the accused-appellant guilty of robbery with less serious physical injuries. Costs were assessed against the appellant.
Ratio Decidendi
On the issue of preliminary investigation and due process: The Court held that the first assignment of error was without merit. The information filed by the city fiscal was for the purpose of initiating proceedings for a preliminary examination to determine if a warrant of arrest should issue. A preliminary investigation proper followed after the warrant of arrest was issued. The record showed that the preliminary investigation was set twice, and the accused's counsel filed a motion to quash the warrant of arrest and a motion to dismiss instead of proceeding with the investigation. The court denied the motion to dismiss, finding a prima facie case and forwarding the records for trial. The Court cited Sanidad v. Bermudez to support the inapplicability of Section 4, Rule 112 of the Rules of Court, which requires the fiscal to conduct a preliminary investigation before filing an information, under the circumstances presented. The appellant had the opportunity to present evidence during the preliminary investigation proper, thus his claim of deprivation of due process was unsubstantiated. On the sufficiency of evidence to prove the elements of the offense: The Court found no merit in the second and third assignments of error. A careful scrutiny of the records led the Court to agree with the People's version of the facts. The complainant, Mauro Gomez, testified that he was boxed and kicked by the accused and his companions on Gahub Bridge, and that his P7.00 was stolen while he was on the ground. His torn clothes and bleeding face corroborated his testimony. The Municipal Health Officer found lacerated wounds on his left eyebrow and nose. Prosecution witness Toribio Manguiran corroborated the testimony by seeing Salvador Gamayon boxing the complainant, with the appellant Andres Sajol among Gamayon's companions. Police Sergeant Eutiquio Bitangcor testified that Pedro Malta identified the appellant and his companions as those harassing him on the bridge. The appellant was arrested the day after the incident based on the revelations of his co-accused. Both Mauro Gomez and Toribio Manguiran positively identified the appellant as one of the assailants under the illumination of fluorescent lights on the bridge. On the defense of alibi and proof beyond reasonable doubt: The Court found the accused-appellant's defense of alibi to be without consideration. His uncorroborated testimony of being at a neighbor's house to butcher a pig was disbelieved because he was positively identified as one of the assailants by prosecution witnesses and even by his own co-accused. The Court reiterated that alibi must be supported by corroborative evidence and must be proven with the same degree of certainty as the crime itself, which was not met in this case. The Court gave credence to the narration of the incident by the prosecution witnesses, especially the police officers, who are presumed to have performed their duties regularly, thus proving guilt beyond reasonable doubt.
Main Doctrine
The failure to conduct a preliminary investigation proper before the filing of an information, when the accused has been afforded the opportunity to present evidence and has instead opted to file a motion to dismiss, does not constitute a deprivation of due process, especially when a prima facie case exists and the case proceeds to trial on the merits.