People vs. Solamillo

All principals in the robbery are liable as principals in the special complex crime of robbery with homicide whether or not they participated in the killing, unless it clearly appears that they endeavored to prevent the homicide.

Alexander Guiroy, proprietor of Liberty Bakery and Grocery in Isabela, Basilan, was found dead inside his establishment on the morning of March 3, 1994, having sustained twenty-one incised wounds, multiple contusions, and abrasions. The bakery was in disarray, with table drawers open and the victim's watch, wallet, and cash missing. Appellants Liberato and Julian Solamillo, along with co-accused Edgardo Ebarle and Eddie Trumata, were employees or visitors present at the bakery the evening prior to the discovery of the crime.

• The Incident: On March 2, 1994, Aleli Guiroy visited her father's bakery and saw appellants Julian Solamillo and Liberato Solamillo, along with co-accused Edgardo Ebarle and Eddie Trumata. The following morning, the victim was found dead on the bakery floor. PO3 Sanchez recovered a bloodied wooden stool, bolo, and bakawan wood. Drawers were open and the premises were in disarray.
• The Aftermath and Arrests: Two days after the incident, Edgardo Ebarle was apprehended in Lamitan and stated during transit that Eddie and the appellants assaulted the victim. Four days after the incident, Liberato was arrested in Zamboanga City; the victim's Seiko watch was on his wrist, and the victim's wallet and money were found in his traveling bag. Julian surrendered to authorities in Bacong, Dumaguete, and admitted to picking up ₱995.00 scattered on the bakery floor after the attack.
• The Defense: Julian testified that Eddie and Edgardo killed the victim after being scolded, and that he failed to intervene due to Eddie's threat on his life. He claimed he took the money only for his fare to Dumaguete, where he intended to surrender. Liberato denied possessing the victim's belongings, claiming the police showed the items to him for the first time during interrogation. Both appellants fled Isabela immediately after the incident.

• Sufficiency of Evidence: Appellants contended that the trial court erred in finding them guilty of robbery with homicide based on the evidence presented.
• Improvident Plea of Guilty: Julian maintained that the trial court erred in disregarding his tacit withdrawal of his guilty plea, asserting that he only pleaded guilty because a policeman threatened to kill him if he did not.
• Lack of Participation in Homicide: Julian argued that he could not be held liable for homicide because he only took money scattered on the floor and did not participate in the killing of the victim.

• Chain of Circumstantial Evidence: The prosecution argued that the combination of circumstances—appellants' presence at the crime scene, their flight after the incident, Liberato's possession of the victim's belongings, and Julian's admission of taking money—established guilt beyond reasonable doubt.
• Liability for the Complex Crime: The prosecution asserted that Julian is liable for robbery with homicide because the taking of the money was intimately connected to the killing, and he made no effort to prevent the homicide.
• Validity of the Guilty Plea: The prosecution countered that Julian never made a categorical withdrawal of his guilty plea in court, and even if the plea was improvident, the conviction was supported by independent evidence.

• Circumstantial Evidence: Whether the circumstantial evidence presented by the prosecution is sufficient to convict appellants of robbery with homicide.
• Improvident Plea: Whether Julian validly withdrew his guilty plea, and the effect of an improvident plea on a conviction supported by independent evidence.
• Liability in Robbery with Homicide: Whether a participant in the robbery who did not directly participate in the killing is liable for the special complex crime of robbery with homicide.
• Aggravating Circumstances: Whether the trial court correctly appreciated the aggravating circumstances of band, evident premeditation, deliberate cruelty, and treachery.

• Circumstantial Evidence: The circumstantial evidence was sufficient to sustain the conviction. The combination of appellants' presence at the scene, their flight after the incident, Liberato's possession of the victim's watch and wallet, and Julian's admission of taking money produced a conviction beyond reasonable doubt. The disputable presumption that a person found in possession of a thing taken in the doing of a recent wrongful act is the taker and doer of the whole act was applied against Liberato, who failed to overcome it or prove ill motive on the part of the arresting officer.
• Improvident Plea: No categorical withdrawal of the guilty plea was made by Julian. His testimony regarding the threat did not constitute a positive and unequivocal act of withdrawal. However, even assuming the plea was improvident, the conviction must be sustained because it was predicated on independent and credible evidence proving his commission of the offense, not merely on the guilty plea.
• Liability in Robbery with Homicide: Liability for the complex crime was properly attributed to Julian. Whenever homicide is committed by reason or on the occasion of a robbery, all who took part as principals in the robbery are principals in the special complex crime, whether or not they participated in the killing, unless they endeavored to prevent the homicide. Julian failed to show that the threat against him left him no opportunity for escape or to prevent the killing; his act of taking money and fleeing was inconsistent with innocence.
• Aggravating Circumstances: All four aggravating circumstances were erroneously appreciated by the trial court. The crime was not committed by a band because there was no evidence all four accused were armed. Evident premeditation was not established absent proof of when the plan to kill was hatched or sufficient lapse of time for reflection. Deliberate cruelty was not proven because the mere number of wounds does not equate to cruelty without evidence of intent to increase the victim's suffering. Treachery cannot be considered because robbery with homicide is a crime against property, not against persons.

• Presumption of possession of recently taken items — Under Section 3(j), Rule 131 of the Revised Rules on Evidence, a person found in possession of a thing taken in the doing of a recent wrongful act is presumed to be the taker and the doer of the whole act. This presumption was applied to Liberato, who was found wearing the victim's watch and in possession of his wallet shortly after the crime, and who failed to provide a satisfactory explanation for such possession.
• Liability in Robbery with Homicide — Whenever homicide has been committed as a consequence of or on the occasion of the robbery, all those who took part as principals in the robbery shall also be held guilty as principals of the special complex crime of robbery with homicide whether or not they actually participated in the killing, unless it clearly appears that they endeavored to prevent the homicide. Julian was held liable under this doctrine because he participated in the taking of the money and did not endeavor to prevent the killing.
• Treachery in Crimes Against Property — Treachery is applicable only to crimes against persons. Because robbery with homicide is primarily classified as a crime against property, treachery cannot be validly considered as an aggravating circumstance.
• Effect of Improvident Plea of Guilty — Convictions based on an improvident plea of guilty are set aside only if such plea is the sole basis of the judgment. If the trial court relied on sufficient and credible evidence to convict the accused, the conviction must be sustained because it is predicated on evidence proving the commission of the offense, not merely on the plea.

• "Whenever homicide has been committed as a consequence of or on the occasion of the robbery, all those who took part as principals in the robbery shall also be held guilty as principals of the special complex crime of robbery with homicide whether or not they actually participated in the killing, unless it clearly appears that they endeavored to prevent the homicide."
• "Treachery is applicable only to crimes against persons. Inasmuch as robbery with homicide is a crime against property and not against persons, treachery cannot be validly considered."
• "Convictions based on an improvident plea of guilty are set aside only if such plea is the sole basis of the judgment. If the trial court relied on sufficient and credible evidence to convict the accused, the conviction must be sustained because then it is predicated not merely on the guilty plea of the accused but on evidence proving his commission of the offense charged."

• People vs. Lobitania — Cited as controlling authority for the rule that treachery cannot be appreciated in robbery with homicide because the offense is classified as a crime against property, not against persons.
• People vs. Cabilto — Followed for the established rule that all principals in the robbery are liable as principals in the special complex crime of robbery with homicide whether or not they participated in the killing, unless they endeavored to prevent the homicide.
• People vs. Abrazaldo — Applied regarding the award of damages; actual damages require proof with a reasonable degree of certainty, and temperate damages may be recovered in lieu thereof when some pecuniary loss is suffered but its amount cannot be proved with certainty.

• Article 294, Revised Penal Code, as amended by Section 9 of R.A. No. 7659 — Defines and penalizes the crime of robbery with homicide. Applied to impose the penalty of reclusion perpetua to death, which was reduced to reclusion perpetua due to the absence of any mitigating or aggravating circumstances.
• Paragraph 6, Article 14, Revised Penal Code — Defines the aggravating circumstance of "by a band," requiring more than three armed malefactors acting together. Found inapplicable because there was no evidence all four accused were armed.
• Section 3(j), Rule 131, Revised Rules on Evidence — Provides the disputable presumption that a person found in possession of a thing taken in the doing of a recent wrongful act is the taker and the doer of the whole act. Applied to establish Liberato's participation.
• Section 5, Rule 116, Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure — Allows an improvident plea of guilty to be withdrawn at any time before the judgment of conviction becomes final. Interpreted to require a categorical declaration from the accused, which Julian failed to make.
• Article 2230, Civil Code — Provides that exemplary damages may be imposed in criminal offenses only when the crime was committed with one or more aggravating circumstances. Applied to delete the award of exemplary damages due to the absence of aggravating circumstances.

Davide, Jr., C.J., Bellosillo, Puno, Vitug, Panganiban, Quisumbing, Ynares-Santiago, Carpio, Corona, Carpio-Morales, Callejo, Sr., and Azcuna, JJ.