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 sentencing was deferred. De Otero pleaded not guilty. After trial, the court found all three guilty. Infante (principal) and Sitchon (accomplice) were sentenced to *cadena perpetua* and eight years and one day of *prision mayor*, respectively. De Otero was sentenced as a principal to *cadena perpetua* for murder. De Otero appealed, challenging the credibility of Infante’s testimony and the sufficiency of evidence.

ISSUE

1. Was the testimony of co-accused Antonio Infante, the principal witness for the prosecution, sufficiently credible and corroborated to convict Francisco de Otero beyond reasonable doubt?
2. Did the trial court err in not requiring the fiscal to present Infante’s prior secret investigation statement?
3. What is the proper classification of the crime and the penalty?

RULING

1. The Supreme Court AFFIRMED the trial court’s judgment, convicting Francisco de Otero as a principal in the crime of murder.

a. On the Credibility and Corroboration of Infante’s Testimony:
The Court held that while the testimony of a co-accused can sustain a conviction even if uncorroborated, the more prudent rule requires corroboration. Infante’s testimony was sufficiently corroborated by:
* Motive: Evidence of an illicit affair between De Otero and Mrs. Rocha, and De Otero’s desire to eliminate Geraldo Rocha to resume the affair and possibly take his job.
* Conduct and Relationship: Testimony showed De Otero provided financial support to the unemployed Infante and Sitchon, broached the plan to kill Rocha, and promised them jobs and a car as reward.
* Execution of the Crime: Infante and Sitchon carried out the killing exactly as De Otero had directedluring Rocha with a pretext about a car buyer and attacking him at the specified location (Matab-ang River).
The Court found Infante’s account credible and materially corroborated by these circumstances.

b. On the Failure to Produce Infante’s Prior Statement:
The Court rejected this assignment of error. Citing precedents (*U.S. vs. Baluyot*, *People vs. Badilla*), it ruled that if the defense believed Infante made prior contradictory statements, the proper procedure was to lay the basis for impeaching his testimony, not to demand the prosecution produce his statement taken under administrative investigation.

c. On the Classification of the Crime and Penalty:
The crime was Murder qualified by “price, reward, or promise” (Art. 403, Penal Code), as De Otero induced Infante and Sitchon with promises of employment and a car. The aggravating circumstances of evident premeditation and craft were present and proven directly. Treachery (*alevosía*) was not considered as De Otero was not present during the actual killing. With no mitigating circumstances to offset the aggravating ones, the penalty should be in the maximum degreedeath.
However, due to the lack of unanimity in the Supreme Court regarding the imposition of the death penalty, the Court applied the prevailing rule and affirmed the lower court’s penalty of *cadena perpetua* (life imprisonment).

Separate Opinion:
Justice Johnson dissented, stating that after a careful examination of the evidence, he was not convinced of De Otero’s guilt beyond reasonable doubt, particularly given the principal witness’s demonstrated capacity for lying. He was unwilling to uphold a life sentence.