G.R. No. L-3097, March 5, 1951
THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. CASIMIRO BERSAMIN (alias MIRONG) ET AL., defendants; CASIMIRO BERSAMIN (alias MIRONG), appellant.

FACTS

On the night of October 24, 1948, Dalmacio Caguing was alone in his house in barrio Malabobo, Mangatarem, Pangasinan. The next morning, his wife found him dead from two gunshot wounds, with household articles scattered and merchandise (including salted fish, canned goods, wine, and a Bible) valued at P80 missing. There were no eyewitnesses to the crime. The prosecution’s case relied primarily on the testimonies of Emiliano Tolentino and Francisco Bulatao, alleged companions of the accused. Tolentino testified that he was taken by Bulatao and appellant Casimiro Bersamin to Caguing’s house, where they were joined by Saturnino de la Vega (a co-accused who did not appeal) and others. Bersamin and De la Vega went upstairs armed (Bersamin with a .45 caliber pistol and De la Vega with a carbine), after which two shots were heard. Bersamin and De la Vega later descended carrying a sack and a knapsack containing stolen items, including a Bible. Bulatao corroborated this, stating he waited outside while Bersamin and De la Vega entered the house, heard shots, and saw them exit with stolen goods. Bersamin denied involvement, claiming an alibi (that he was in his house in Urbiztondo, about 89 kilometers away) and alleging that Bulatao testified falsely due to a grudge. The trial court convicted Bersamin and De la Vega of robbery with homicide, sentencing Bersamin to reclusion perpetua, indemnity, and restitution. Bersamin appealed.

ISSUE

Whether the trial court erred in convicting appellant Casimiro Bersamin of robbery with homicide based on the testimonies of prosecution witnesses Emiliano Tolentino and Francisco Bulatao.

RULING

The Supreme Court affirmed the conviction but modified the penalty. The Court found the testimonies of Tolentino and Bulatao credible and consistent, while Bersamin’s alibi and attempt to discredit Bulatao were unconvincing and unsupported. Conspiracy to rob was established, and the killing was a direct result of the robbery, making all active conspirators equally liable. The Court agreed with the trial court’s rejection of Alfredo Arellano’s confession (inadmissible against Bersamin), the pistol (hearsay and irrelevant), and the Bible (dependent on Bulatao’s credibility) as evidence. Aggravating circumstances of dwelling and either nighttime or superior strength were present. Additionally, Bersamin’s moral perversity was noted, as he was a ringleader in other murder cases (one affirmed by the Supreme Court in G.R. No. L-3098) and was in hiding at the time of this crime. Given these aggravating circumstances, the Court reversed the penalty of reclusion perpetua and imposed the death penalty. The rest of the trial court’s judgment (indemnity, restitution, costs) was affirmed.