GR 123161; (June, 2003) (Digest)
G.R. No. 123161; June 18, 2003
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee, vs. LIBERATO “DUKDUK” SOLAMILLO and JULIAN SOLAMILLO, Accused-Appellants.
FACTS
On March 2, 1994, Alexander Guiroy, proprietor of Liberty Bakery in Isabela, Basilan, was found dead inside his establishment, which was in disarray. Cash, a wallet, and a Seiko watch were missing. The victim sustained 21 incised wounds and multiple contusions. Appellants Liberato and Julian Solamillo, together with Edgardo Ebarle and Eddie Trumata, were charged with Robbery with Homicide. Julian initially pleaded guilty but later testified for the defense. The prosecution presented evidence, including the testimony of the victim’s daughter, Aleli, who last saw the appellants at the bakery before the crime, and SPO4 Oreta, who recovered the victim’s watch from Liberato and his wallet containing cash.
The defense presented a different narrative. Julian testified that he witnessed co-accused Eddie Trumata and Edgardo Ebarle attack the victim without his or Liberato’s participation. He claimed he took money only after the killing out of fear and that Liberato was not present during the incident. The trial court rejected this defense, finding both appellants guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the complex crime of robbery with homicide and imposing the death penalty. The case was elevated to the Supreme Court for automatic review.
ISSUE
Whether the guilt of appellants Liberato and Julian Solamillo for the complex crime of robbery with homicide was proven beyond reasonable doubt.
RULING
Yes, the Supreme Court affirmed the conviction but modified the penalty. The Court found the prosecution evidence sufficient to establish conspiracy among all accused, including the appellants. The collective actions of Trumata, Ebarle, and the Solamillo brothers—the violent killing followed by the taking of cash and personal items—demonstrated a unity of purpose to commit robbery, with homicide resulting. Julian’s defense of mere presence and non-participation was untenable; his act of taking money and fleeing indicated complicity. Liberato’s possession of the victim’s recently stolen watch, absent a credible explanation, gave rise to a presumption of guilt under the doctrine of recent possession of stolen property.
The crime is the special complex crime of robbery with homicide under Article 294(1) of the Revised Penal Code. However, the Supreme Court reduced the penalty from death to reclusion perpetua. The Information alleged the aggravating circumstances of treachery and evident premeditation, but the trial court failed to make specific findings on these qualifiers. In the absence of such factual determination, these circumstances cannot be appreciated to justify the supreme penalty. The award of damages was also modified in line with prevailing jurisprudence.