G.R. No. 28072, December 10, 1927
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINE ISLANDS, plaintiff-appellee, vs. FRANCISCO DE OTERO, ET AL., defendants. FRANCISCO DE OTERO, appellant.

FACTS

On May 31, 1927, Geraldo Rocha was found unconscious in an abandoned automobile and later died. An autopsy revealed foul play. Francisco de Otero, Antonio Infante, and Andres Sitchon were arrested and charged. Infante and Sitchon pleaded guilty in a separate trial, but their sentencing was deferred until after De Otero’s trial. De Otero pleaded not guilty. After trial, the court found all three guilty. Infante (principal) and De Otero (principal) were sentenced to *cadena perpetua* (life imprisonment), and Sitchon (accomplice) to eight years and one day of *prision mayor*. De Otero appealed, challenging the credibility of his co-accused Infante (the main prosecution witness), the sufficiency of evidence, and the trial court’s refusal to order the prosecution to produce Infante’s prior statement to the fiscal.

ISSUE

1. Was the testimony of co-accused Antonio Infante, uncorroborated, sufficient to convict Francisco de Otero?
2. Did the trial court err in not requiring the fiscal to present Infante’s prior statement made during a secret investigation?

RULING

1. On the sufficiency of evidence and credibility of the co-accused’s testimony: The Supreme Court AFFIRMED De Otero’s conviction. While the uncorroborated testimony of an accomplice can sustain a conviction, the more prudent rule requires corroboration. The Court found that Infante’s testimony was materially corroborated by other evidence:
* Motive: Evidence established De Otero’s illicit affair with Rocha’s wife and his desire to eliminate Rocha to resume the affair and possibly take his job.
* Conduct: Witnesses testified that De Otero provided financial support to the unemployed Infante and Sitchon prior to the crime, consistent with Infante’s account of being induced to commit the murder.
* Details of the Crime: Infante’s detailed account of how he and Sitchon lured and killed Rocha was consistent with the physical evidence.
The Court concluded that the evidence proved De Otero’s guilt as a principal by inducement (Article 13[2] of the Penal Code) beyond reasonable doubt. The crime was Murder, qualified by price/reward, with aggravating circumstances of evident premeditation and craft. The penalty was properly imposed at the maximum degree. Due to lack of unanimity for the death penalty, the Court adhered to the trial court’s imposition of *cadena perpetua*.

2. On the failure to produce the prior statement: The Supreme Court held there was NO ERROR. Citing precedents (*U.S. vs. Baluyot*, *People vs. Badilla*), the Court ruled that if the defense believed Infante made prior contradictory statements, it was counsel’s duty to lay the proper foundation to impeach the witness, not to demand the prosecution produce the statement taken under the fiscal’s investigative authority. The defense failed to do this.

DISPOSITION: Judgment AFFIRMED. Costs against appellant De Otero.

SEPARATE OPINION:
Justice Johnson dissented, stating that the principal witness (Infante) was shown to be capable of lying, and the evidence was insufficient to convince him of De Otero’s guilt.