Title
Supreme Court
People vs. Solar y Dumbrique
Case
G.R. No. 225595
Decision Date
Aug 6, 2019
Rolando Solar convicted of Murder for the 2008 fatal attack on Joseph Capinig, upheld by the Supreme Court due to proven conspiracy, treachery, and credible eyewitness testimony.

Case Digest (G.R. No. 225595)
Expanded Legal Reasoning Model

Facts:

  • Information and Arraignment
    • On March 9, 2008 in Las Piñas City, Rolando Solar y Dumbrique (Rolando) and Mark Kenneth Solar were charged under an Information with murder of Joseph Capinig y Mato by hitting and beating his head with a baseball bat, allegedly qualified by treachery and abuse of superior strength.
    • At arraignment, Rolando pleaded not guilty; Mark Kenneth remained at large.
  • Trial Evidence
    • Prosecution
      • Eyewitness Ma. Theresa Capinig (victim’s wife) testified she saw both assailants, including Rolando, strike Joseph with a bat, then gang up on him; victim died on arrival at hospital.
      • Dr. Voltaire Nulud’s postmortem showed contusions on forehead, cerebral hemorrhages from blunt-force trauma.
    • Defense
      • Rolando claimed he was at a wake from 11:00 p.m. to 2:00 a.m.; Joseph was present but left later.
      • He alleged Joseph attacked him first with a knife, but he escaped unharmed.
  • Lower Court Decisions
    • RTC (Sept 3, 2012) found Rolando guilty of Murder (Art. 248 RPC), sentenced him to reclusion perpetua, ordered payment of ₱50,000 civil indemnity, ₱50,000 moral damages, ₱25,000 exemplary damages.
    • CA (Jan 13, 2015) affirmed guilt but downgraded offense to Homicide, adjusted damages to ₱50,000 civil indemnity, ₱50,000 moral damages, ₱25,000 temperate damages.

Issues:

  • Sufficiency of Proof
    • Did the CA err in upholding conviction despite alleged failure to prove Rolando’s identity and guilt beyond reasonable doubt?
    • Did the CA err in finding conspiracy between Rolando and Mark Kenneth without direct evidence of prior agreement?
  • Classification of Offense
    • Did the Information sufficiently allege treachery to sustain a conviction for Murder, or was specific factual detail required?

Ruling:

  • (Subscriber-Only)

Ratio:

  • (Subscriber-Only)

Doctrine:

  • (Subscriber-Only)

Analyze Cases Smarter, Faster
Jur is a legal research platform serving the Philippines with case digests and jurisprudence resources. AI digests are study aids only—use responsibly.