G.R. No. 11157 - Ramirez vs. De Orozco

Case Summary (G.R. No. 11157)

Factual Background

The prosecution’s evidence established that Alexander Guiroy owned Liberty Bakery and Grocery in Rizal Avenue, Isabela, Basilan. The victim’s employees included Julian Solamillo, Edgardo Ebarle, and Eddie Trumata, who reportedly lived together in the bakery. On March 2, 1994, Aleli Guiroy (the victim’s daughter) saw the accused at the bakery from approximately 5:00 p.m. until 6:10 p.m.

The next morning, Aleli returned but found the doors unable to open. She sought help from her uncle, who asked Warlito Gonoz to accompany her. When Warlito peeped through a window, he saw the victim lying on the floor. They immediately reported the incident to the police.

PO3 Celso Tan Sanchez arrived and found the victim dead on the floor, with a wooden stool, a bolo, and a piece of bakawan (firewood) at the scene, all allegedly bearing blood. The table drawers were open, and the bakery was in disarray. Aleli informed PO3 Sanchez that her father’s P20,000.00, wallet, and Seiko Diver watch were missing.

Dr. Teresita L. Dans confirmed through a post-mortem report that the victim suffered twenty-one (21) incised wounds, multiple contusion-hematoma, and multiple abrasions, which caused death. She testified that the incised wounds were probably caused by a knife or bolo, while the hematomas, contusions, and abrasions were caused by a blunt instrument such as a piece of wood or pipe.

Aleli testified that she spent more than P20,000.00 for the funeral of her father.

Apprehension and Incriminating Circumstances

Two days after the incident, on March 4, 1994, police authorities from Lamitan informed Emmanuel Guiroy (the victim’s brother) that they had apprehended Edgardo Ebarle. Emmanuel and SPO4 Pedro Oreta went to Lamitan and the police there turned over Edgardo to SPO4 Oreta. On the return trip to Isabela, Edgardo allegedly told Emmanuel that Eddie Trumata and the appellants assaulted the victim, pulled him to the table, and hit his head.

On March 6, 1994, SPO4 Oreta arrested Liberato Solamillo in Zamboanga City. During investigation, SPO4 Oreta observed that Liberato was wearing a watch. Emmanuel confirmed it belonged to the victim. When SPO4 Oreta asked Liberato to open his traveling bag, he found therein the missing wallet and money amounting to P48.00.

In contrast, Liberato and Julian presented different narratives. Liberato claimed he went to Zamboanga City to look for Julian after the incident. Julian’s account was that on the day of the crime, Liberato visited Julian at the bakery around 4:00 p.m., and after about one hour Liberato went to Melanio’s house. Julian further claimed that around 6:30 p.m. he started preparing flour, while Edgardo Ebarle and Eddie Trumata cooked supper. He stated that the victim scolded Edgardo and Eddie for creating a mess, and while the victim sat to feed his cat, Julian saw Eddie hit the victim’s head with a piece of bakawan, causing him to fall. Julian claimed he could not intervene because Eddie threatened to kill him if he did so, and that Edgardo then attacked the victim with a bolo.

Julian also admitted that after the victim was beaten, Eddie and Edgardo ransacked the drawers and took money, and that he later picked up P995.00 scattered on the floor because he had no fare and because he was told he would escape because he would be included in the incident. Julian asserted he then left, passed through Zamboanga City while going to Dumaguete City, and intended to surrender.

The record indicated that Julian surrendered to the police in Bacong, Dumaguete, was detained there until turnover to Isabela police, and pleaded guilty during arraignment after allegedly being threatened by a policeman named Bayabos that he would be killed if he pleaded not guilty.

RTC Conviction and Automatic Review

On September 20, 1995, the RTC declared both appellants guilty of robbery with homicide. It found the case supported by circumstantial evidence, particularly: that the employees and accused were at the bakery; that the victim was found dead the next day; that after the crime all four accused fled to different places; that the victim’s wristwatch and wallet were found in Liberato’s possession upon arrest; and that Julian admitted picking up P995.00 from money scattered on the bakery floor.

The RTC appreciated aggravating circumstances and imposed the death penalty. It held that the offense was committed by a band, with evident premeditation, with treachery, and with deliberate cruelty.

The Parties’ Contentions

In their briefs, Liberato and Julian both assailed their conviction and sentence. Liberato mainly challenged the finding of guilt through circumstantial evidence and argued that he did not have knowledge of the victim’s personal effects, claiming he saw those items only when shown to him during interrogation. Julian argued that the trial court erred in disregarding his tacit withdrawal of his guilty plea, because he claimed he had been threatened into pleading guilty.

Issues Before the Appellate Court

The appellate consideration centered on: whether the circumstantial evidence was sufficient to establish both appellants’ guilt beyond reasonable doubt of robbery with homicide; whether Liberato successfully overcame the evidentiary presumption relating to possession of property taken in a recent wrongful act; whether Julian’s guilty plea was properly treated in light of his allegations of threats; and whether the RTC correctly appreciated the aggravating circumstances, as well as the propriety of damages and penalties.

Legal Basis and Reasoning

The Court held that circumstantial evidence was sufficient for conviction. It restated the requisites for reliance on circumstantial evidence: there must be more than one circumstance; the facts from which inferences are derived must be proven; and the combined circumstances must produce a conviction beyond reasonable doubt. It treated the circumstances as consistent with guilt and inconsistent with innocence.

With respect to Liberato, the Court applied Section 3(j), Rule 131 of the Revised Rules on Evidence on disputable presumptions: 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, if the presumption remains uncontradicted. The Court found that Liberato failed to provide a satisfactory explanation for why the victim’s belongings were in his possession and also found no motive on SPO4 Oreta’s part to fabricate evidence. It added that SPO4 Oreta enjoyed the presumption of regularity in the performance of official duty under Section 3(m), Rule 131, and that Liberato also failed to overthrow this presumption.

The Court further considered Liberato’s alleged flight. It acknowledged that flight per se does not prove guilt, but it may serve as a strong indication when viewed with other circumstances. Given Liberato’s presence at the bakery, his flight after the incident, and his possession of the victim’s personal effects at arrest, the Court affirmed the conclusion that Liberato was a participant in the robbery with homicide.

As to Julian, the Court addressed his claim of tacit withdrawal of his guilty plea. It cited Section 5, Rule 116 of the Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure, as amended, which allows the court to permit withdrawal of an improvident plea of guilty before judgment becomes final, provided the accused withdraws the plea and substitutes a plea of not guilty. The Court found nothing on record showing that Julian filed a motion to withdraw his plea or unequivocally manifested withdrawal. It considered Julian’s testimony during trial about being threatened as not a positive and categorical declaration that he was withdrawing his guilty plea.

The Court held, nonetheless, that even if the plea was improvidently made, it did not automatically exculpate Julian. It explained that convictions based on an improvident plea are set aside only if the plea was the sole basis of the judgment. Where the conviction rests on independent evidence establishing the accused’s commission of the offense, sustaining the conviction is proper.

The Court found that the RTC relied on extensive evidence beyond Julian’s plea. It then examined the elements of robbery with homicide and held the prosecution established them. These elements were articulated as: the taking of personal property with violence or intimidation against a person; the property taken belonged to another; the taking was characterized by intent to gain (animus lucrandi); and the homicide, committed on the occasion of the robbery or by reason thereof, forms the killing aspect of the special complex crime.

The Court rejected Julian’s contention that he could not be liable for homicide because he allegedly only took money. It held that what matters in robbery with homicide is a direct relation and intimate connection between the robbery and the killing, whether the killing precedes or follows the robbery, or both occur simultaneously. It emphasized that Julian placed himself at the crime scene during the attack: he testified that Eddie hit the victim with a piece of bakawan, the victim fell, Julian then exchanged blows with Trumata, and Edgardo then hacked the victim with a bolo. The Court treated Julian’s failure to intervene as consistent with participation in the robbery.

The Court relied on Julian’s own admission that he picked up P995.00 scattered on the floor after the robbery. It invoked the rule that when homicide is committed as a consequence of or on the occasion of the robbery, all principals in the robbery are guilty of robbery with homicide, unless they clearly endeavored to prevent the homicide. The Court found Julian’s claimed justification—that he needed money for fare and that threats prevented him from stopping the killers—self-serving and unsupported. It noted the lack of proof that the threat was so overwhelming as to leave him no opportunity either to escape or to prevent the homicide, and it foun

Case Syllabus (G.R. No. 11157)

Parties and Procedural Posture

The People of the Philippines prosecuted Liberato “Dukduk” Solamillo and Julian Solamillo for robbery with homicide.
The case arrived at the Supreme Court for automatic review of the Regional Trial Court, Branch 1, Isabela, Basilan Decision dated September 20, 1995 in Criminal Case No. 2099.
The trial court imposed the death penalty on both accused and ordered payment of specified civil damages.
The trial court’s judgment was reviewed despite appellant Julian’s guilty plea because criminal liability also depended on the evidence presented.
Edgardo Ebarle was included in the information but died before he could testify as a state witness after a prosecution motion for discharge.
Eddie “Angel” Trumata was not arraigned because he was at large during the proceedings described.

Key Factual Allegations

The Information alleged that on or about March 2, 1994, in Aguada Barangay, Municipality of Isabela, Province of Basilan, the accused acted conspiring and confederating with armed implements to assault Alexander Guiroy.
The assault was alleged to be committed with treachery and evident premeditation, and with intent to kill, resulting in Alexander Guiroy’s instantaneous death.
The information further alleged that while the victim was already dead, the accused with intent to gain forcibly took specified items from the victim, namely cash equivalent to four-day income (about P20,000.00), a “Seiko Diver” wristwatch (worth P3,000.00), and a black wallet, totaling P23,000.00.
The accused were alleged to have used force and violence upon the victim and to have taken the property as part of the same criminal undertaking.

Evidence Presented at Trial

The prosecution established that the victim owned the Liberty Bakery and Grocery and that the employees included the accused, especially Julian Solamillo, Edgardo Ebarle, and Eddie Trumata, who lived together in the bakery.
Aleli P. Guiroy testified that she saw the accused in the bakery on March 2, 1994 from about five o’clock in the afternoon until about six ten in the evening.
Aleli returned the next morning but found the doors unable to open and sought help from her uncle, Lorenzo Guiroy, who brought Warlito Gonoz.
Warlito peeped through a window and saw the victim lying on the floor, prompting immediate reporting to the police.
PO3 Celso Tan Sanchez arrived at the scene and found the victim’s dead body, along with a wooden stool, a bolo, and a piece of bakawan, all reportedly with blood, with open drawers and a disarranged bakery.
Aleli informed PO3 Sanchez that the victim’s P20,000.00, wallet, and Seiko watch were missing.
Dr. Teresita L. Dans examined the body and confirmed in the post-mortem report that the victim suffered twenty-one incised wounds, multiple contusion-hematoma, and multiple abrasions, which caused death.
The medical testimony classified the incised wounds as probably caused by a knife or bolo, and classified the contusion-hematoma and abrasions as probably caused by a blunt instrument such as wood or a pipe.
Aleli testified that she spent more than P20,000.00 for the funeral of her father.
Emmanuel Guiroy, the victim’s brother, testified that police informed him on March 4, 1994 that they apprehended Edgardo Ebarle in Lamitan, and during transfer Edgardo allegedly told him that Eddie Trumata and the appellants assaulted the victim, pulled him to the table, and hit his head.
SPO4 Pedro Oreta testified that on March 6, 1994, he arrested Liberato Solamillo in Zamboanga City.
During investigation, SPO4 Oreta noticed Liberato was wearing a watch that Emmanuel confirmed belonged to the victim.
SPO4 Oreta also asked Liberato to open his traveling bag and found inside the victim’s missing wallet and money amounting to P48.00.
The defense narrative attempted to deny direct participation by portraying the accused’s movements and roles during the incident.

Defense Version and Incriminatory Admissions

Liberato claimed he went to Zamboanga City after the incident to look for Julian.
Julian did not directly deny presence; instead, he challenged the impact of his earlier guilty plea and claimed he only took money.
Julian testified that after the victim scolded Edgardo and Eddie for creating a mess, Eddie struck the victim’s head with a piece of bakawan, the victim fell, and thereafter Julian and Eddie exchanged blows.
Julian testified that Edgardo then got a bolo and attacked the victim while Julian claimed he could not intervene because Eddie threatened to kill him if he did.
Julian testified that after the victim was attacked, Eddie and Edgardo ransacked the drawers and took money, and that Julian then took P995.00 scattered on the floor because he lacked money for his fare.
Julian testified that he left immediately, proceeded to Dumaguete City intending to surrender, and met Liberato in Zamboanga City.
Liberato was arrested in Zamboanga City after being linked to the victim’s watch and wallet found in his possession.
Julian admitted that he pleaded guilty at arraignment because a policeman named Bayabos allegedly threatened to kill him and because his counsel allegedly did not attend him at the police station.

Trial Court’s Findings

The trial court convicted both appellants of robbery with homicide as charged in the information.
It held that the prosecution’s case rested on a chain of circumstantial evidence sufficient to establish guilt beyond reasonable doubt.
The trial court treated the following as circumstantial anchors for conviction: employment and presence at the bakery; the victim’s body and missing items discovered after the next day; flight of all accused after the incident; and possession of the victim’s personal effects by Liberato upon arrest.
The trial court found that there were no mitigating circumstances to offset the presence of aggravating circumstances it appreciated.
The trial court appreciated four aggravating circumstances, namely commission by a band, with evident premeditation, with treachery, and with deliberate cruelty based on the number and location of wounds.
The trial court sentenced both accused to the extreme penalty of death, and awarded moral damages, exemplary damages, attorney’s fees, and costs.

Issues Raised on Appeal

The appellants argued that the trial court erred in finding them guilty of robbery with homicide.
They also challenged the imposition of the death penalty.
Julian additionally argued that the trial court should have disregarded his guilty plea due to an alleged threat compelling the plea.
Julian contended that he should not be held liable for homicide because his alleged role was limited to taking money.

Circumstantial Evidence Analysis

The Supreme Court ruled that circumstantial evidence could support conviction if there was more than one circumstance, the proven facts produced logical inferences, and the combination of circumstances excluded reasonable doubt.
The Court held that circumstances consistent with guilt and inconsistent with innocence could surpass direct evidence in weight.
The Court treated the evidence as sufficient for Liberato’s conviction based on proven circumstances showing his connection to the crime scene, the subsequent disappearance and flight, and his possession of the victim’s personal effects.
The Court addressed Liberato’s denial by invoking Section 3, Rule 131 of the Revised Rules on Evidence, particularly the disputable presumption that a person found in possession of a thing taken in a recent wrongful act is the take