G.R. No. L-11052 - Tejuco vs. E.R. Squibb and Son Philippine Corp.

On the night of February 14, 1993, two brothers—Julio Solis and Nicanor Solis—were at home in Pasong Palanas, Antipolo, Rizal, with the room illuminated by a double rechargeable lamp.
At about 9:00 p.m., Julio heard loud shouts and laughter coming from the direction west of the house, including the cry “papatayin ko kayo” (translated as “I will kill you” or “let me kill you”).
Julio observed, from a hiding place behind some trees approximately five meters away, that a group of five individuals entered the yard carrying flashlights and brandishing bladed weapons. The accused were identified as Lastide A. Sube, Rolando M. Menzon, Felizardo Ontog, Benedicto A. Acala, and Dino G. Ayala.

Inside the house, Julio witnessed the accused enter and noticed one of them striking Nicanor Solis with an airgun (a family weapon that belonged to their father).
After the apparent assault, the group emerged from the house carrying a bound Nicanor, whose hands were tied with a nylon cord. This marked the last time Nicanor was seen alive.
Promptly, Julio alerted his father, Melquiades Solis, and subsequently reported the incident to the local police.

Upon arrival at Nicanor’s home, police and the family attempted to locate the accused; however, initial efforts at the scene at around 2:00 a.m. yielded no immediate results.
In a later development, Lastide Sube was turned over to the Antipolo Police headquarters by Col. Victor Obillo, and he subsequently indicated the location where Nicanor was buried.
Rolando M. Menzon was arrested on February 18, 1993, and together with Sube, led the authorities to the burial site where Nicanor’s body was interred.
An information for Murder was filed on March 8, 1993, and later amended on July 20, 1993, to include all accused, alleging that the five individuals, acting in concert, attacked and fatally wounded Nicanor employing treachery and premeditation.

Claimed to have been at his residence engaging in a birthday celebration for his daughter, Cristina, when notified of an intruder.
Described events where, after being alerted by his wife and accompanied by co-accused Ayala and Acala, he encountered Nicanor Solis’s corpse and was pressured under threat to help bury it.

Offered a narrative similar to Sube’s but noted that upon following Ayala and Acala, he observed that Nicanor was alive and being supported by the latter pair, only to later find him dead along the roadside.
Asserted that threats by Ayala and Acala compelled him and others to assist in handling the body, although his account diverged on the details regarding who exactly carried the corpse.

Claimed he had left a drinking session at Sube’s house earlier in the evening (around 9:00 p.m.) and was in his own residence when the commotion began.
Stated that upon going out he observed Sube’s wife calling out and saw Acala and Ayala chasing Nicanor, which eventually led him to follow and be forced into assisting with the burial when confronted by weapons.

The Regional Trial Court of Antipolo City, Branch 73, found Lastide A. Sube, Rolando M. Menzon, and Felizardo Ontog guilty of murder based on the weight of circumstantial evidence and credible testimony, mainly from Julio Solis.
The initial judgment sentenced the accused-appellants to reclusion perpetua and ordered joint and several payment of actual, nominal, moral, and death indemnity damages to the heirs of Nicanor Solis.
The accused-appellants, however, raised several issues on appeal, contending that their guilt was not proven beyond a reasonable doubt, that the evidence for conspiracy was insufficient, and that mitigating circumstances (specifically voluntary surrender) should have been considered.

Whether the evidence presented, predominantly circumstantial in nature, was sufficient to establish beyond reasonable doubt the guilt of the accused-appellants in the killing of Nicanor Solis.
Whether the trial court erred in convicting the accused-appellants for conspiracy to commit murder in the absence of direct proof of their individual culpability.
Whether the trial court properly evaluated and applied the mitigating circumstance of voluntary surrender in the context of the facts of the case.