G.R. No. L-12236; April 28, 1961
THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. BRAULIO BERSALONA and MARCELO VALLECERA, defendants-appellants.

FACTS

The case involves the murder of Francisco Bersalona. The appellants, Braulio Bersalona (the victim’s brother) and Marcelo Vallecera, were convicted by the Court of First Instance of Bohol and sentenced to death. The prosecution’s case rested heavily on the testimony of Eleuterio Rajas, a co-accused turned state witness. Rajas detailed a conspiracy where Braulio, motivated by greed to immediately possess the properties bequeathed to him in Francisco’s will, planned the killing. He enlisted Vallecera by promising to cancel Vallecera’s mortgage debt to the deceased. After two failed attempts, on March 28, 1955, they waylaid Francisco in an uninhabited place. Rajas testified that Braulio choked Francisco to death while Vallecera held the victim’s hands from behind. Francisco’s body was later found on the seashore. The physician who examined the corpse noted a hematoma on the neck and ruled out drowning, but the cause of death was officially listed as unknown. The will, which made Braulio the sole heir, and the subsequent division of the deceased’s properties among the heirs, formed part of the circumstantial evidence.

ISSUE

The primary issue on appeal was whether the guilt of the appellants was proven beyond reasonable doubt, and whether the imposition of the death penalty was proper for both.

RULING

The Supreme Court affirmed the conviction but modified the penalty. The Court found the testimony of state witness Rajas to be “direct, positive, coherent and inherently truthful,” corroborated by circumstantial evidence such as the will and the appellants’ conduct. The legal logic centered on the evaluation of witness credibility and the presence of aggravating circumstances. The Court upheld the trial court’s finding of five aggravating circumstances: evident premeditation, treachery, superior strength, disregard of age and relationship, and commission in an uninhabited place. However, it noted that the circumstances of relationship and ungratefulness applied only to Braulio, not Vallecera. Consequently, while there were sufficient votes to affirm the death penalty for Braulio due to his “apparent perversity” as the principal instigator, there was no sufficient vote to impose the same on Vallecera. Applying the rules on the imposition of the death penalty requiring a unanimous vote, the penalty for Marcelo Vallecera was reduced to reclusion perpetua. The judgment was thus affirmed with this modification.