Title
People vs. De Otero
Case
G.R. No. 28072
Decision Date
Dec 10, 1927
Francisco de Otero instigated the murder of Gerardo Rocha to pursue an affair with Rocha’s wife, hiring accomplices who testified against him; the court upheld his life sentence.

Case Digest (G.R. No. 28072)
Expanded Legal Reasoning Model

Facts:

  • Incident and Discovery
    • On the morning of May 31, 1927, the unconscious body of Gerardo Rocha was discovered in an abandoned automobile on the Talisay-Bacolod Road border.
    • Rocha was transported to the provincial hospital of Occidental Negros where he subsequently died the same afternoon without uttering a word.
    • Autopsy findings revealed wounds indicative of foul play, suggesting a deliberate act of violence.
  • Arrests and Initial Proceedings
    • On the day following the discovery, Francisco de Otero, Antonio Infante, and Andres Sitchon were arrested as the alleged perpetrators in connection with Rocha’s murder.
    • The corresponding information was filed against the accused, charging them with the crime.
    • Antonio Infante and Andres Sitchon requested a separate trial, which was granted.
    • At their separate trial, both Infante and Sitchon pleaded guilty; however, their sentencing was deferred until after Francisco de Otero’s trial to ascertain their individual responsibility more justly.
  • Trial of Francisco de Otero
    • Francisco de Otero pleaded not guilty at the onset of his trial on June 20, 1927.
    • The trial concluded with the trial judge pronouncing two distinct sentences on June 21, 1927:
      • Antonio Infante, as a principal, was sentenced to life imprisonment (cadena perpetua) with accessory penalties, along with an order to indemnify the heirs of Rocha with P1,000 and share one-third of the costs.
      • Andres Sitchon, involved as an accomplice, was sentenced to eight years and one day imprisonment (prision mayor) with similar accessory penalties and cost-sharing requirements.
      • Francisco de Otero was found guilty as a principal in the murder and sentenced to life imprisonment (cadena perpetua) with accessory penalties, compensation to the heirs of Rocha of P1,000, and allocation of one-third of the costs.
  • Appeals and Assignments of Error
    • Francisco de Otero appealed the decision.
    • The appellant raised four alleged errors:
      • Trial court’s giving undue credit to the testimony of coaccused Antonio Infante.
      • The failure of the trial court to compel the fiscal to present Infante’s secret investigation report.
      • The trial court’s omission to declare the prosecution’s evidence insufficient.
      • The court’s failure to absolve Francisco de Otero of the charges.
  • Evidence and Testimonies Presented
    • Main Prosecution Evidence:
      • Antonio Infante emerged as the principal witness with a detailed account of the conspiracy to murder Rocha.
      • According to Infante, he had a longstanding association with Francisco de Otero, having met him at Mrs. Irene de Frias’s residence, when De Otero began to support both Infante and Sitchon materially.
      • De Otero allegedly proposed the murder of Rocha to clear the way to resume an illicit affair with Mrs. Rocha and to obtain an advantageous social position.
    • Specific Details of the Conspiracy and Crime:
      • De Otero promised Infante and Sitchon employment benefits, including positions with a salary of P50 a month, a second-hand automobile, and daily sustenance, to secure their participation in the crime.
      • The murder scheme was executed on the evening of May 30, 1927, by luring Rocha under the pretext of a car sale and then ambushing him.
      • Infante delivered the fatal blows with a piece of wood, with Sitchon present at the scene, although his role was secondary.
    • Corroborative Testimonies and Circumstantial Evidence:
      • Testimony from Mrs. Rocha confirmed the existence of an illicit love affair between her and De Otero, providing motive.
      • Bernardo Bejoy corroborated the payment arrangements made by De Otero for Infante and Sitchon’s board and sustenance.
      • Additional witnesses (Esteban Magbanua, Jaime Morrell, and Manuel Grandeza) confirmed the regular association and discussions among De Otero, Infante, and Sitchon.
      • Physical evidence, such as the victim's money and watch being found intact on his body, negated the possibility of robbery as a motive.
    • Defense Testimony and Arguments:
      • Francisco de Otero admitted acquaintance with Infante and Sitchon but attempted to distance himself from the conspiracy by accusing them of being solely motivated by personal gain following a failed commission and attributing his own admission only to charges of adultery.
      • An unsuccessful effort was made to provide an alibi, stating that De Otero was playing dominoes with Joaquin Sierra during the alleged time of the conspiracy, though this claim lacked substantiation.
  • Trial Conduct and Judicial Observations
    • Despite some minor contradictions in Infante’s testimony, the trial judge held that his account was largely sustained by circumstantial evidence, corroborating the participation of De Otero.
    • The trial judge was praised for his prompt and judicious handling of the case, emphasizing speedy dispensation of justice as a virtue, particularly in serious criminal cases like murder.
    • There was an observed anomaly regarding the non-examination of Andres Sitchon despite his availability as a witness, yet the court maintained that no unfavorable inference should be drawn from this omission.

Issues:

  • Credibility and Sufficiency of Evidence
    • Whether the testimony of coaccused Antonio Infante, despite his plea of guilt, could be relied upon sufficiently to convict Francisco de Otero of murder.
    • Whether the absence of the secret investigation documents of Infante diminished or affected the overall credibility of the prosecution’s case and thus the sufficiency of the evidence presented.
  • Legal Errors in Trial Court Proceedings
    • Whether the trial court erred by giving undue weight to the evidence of Infante.
    • Whether the trial court should have declared the evidence presented by the prosecution as insufficient, thereby warranting an acquittal of Francisco de Otero.
    • Whether Francisco de Otero’s alleged non-involvement in the actual commission of the murder should have been enough to absolve him even if acting as an instigator.
  • The Impact of Corroborative and Circumstantial Evidence
    • Whether the circumstantial evidence, including the motive driven by De Otero’s illicit relationship with Mrs. Rocha, sufficiently supported the finding of murder.
    • Whether the minor discrepancies in Infante’s testimony detracted from the overall reliability of the prosecution’s case.
  • Procedural Due Process and Prompt Administration of Justice
    • Whether the rapid progression through the trial process, as prompted by judicial admonitions for expeditious trials, compromised the thoroughness of the proceedings.
    • Whether the failure to examine Andres Sitchon affected the fairness and completeness of the evidence on record.

Ruling:

  • (Subscriber-Only)

Ratio:

  • (Subscriber-Only)

Doctrine:

  • (Subscriber-Only)
Unlock Full Case Digest

Analyze Cases Smarter, Faster
Jur is a legal research platform serving the Philippines with case digests and jurisprudence resources.

About Privacy Terms