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 Summary (G.R. No. 225595)

Factual Background

On March 9, 2008 at around 2:00 a.m., victim Joseph Capinig left home to retrieve his cellphone from Rolando. His wife, Ma. Theresa, followed and witnessed Rolando and Mark Kenneth strike Joseph on the nape with a baseball bat. After Joseph fell, the two allegedly mauled him until she shouted for help. The assailants fled. Joseph was rushed to the hospital but pronounced dead on arrival. Post-mortem findings revealed blunt-force trauma to the brain with contusion and hemorrhage.

Rolando denied involvement, claiming he was at a wake from 11:00 p.m. to 2:00 a.m. He testified that Joseph, armed with a kitchen knife, lunged at him, but he escaped unharmed.

RTC Proceedings and Judgment

An Information charged Rolando and Mark Kenneth with murder qualified by treachery and abuse of superior strength. At arraignment, Rolando pleaded not guilty; Mark Kenneth remained at large. Trial ensued. The RTC found Ma. Theresa’s testimony “clear, positive, categorical and credible,” establishing Rolando’s identity and participation. It also concluded that treachery attended the killing. On September 3, 2012, the RTC convicted Rolando of Murder under Article 248, sentencing him to reclusion perpetua and ordering civil indemnity (₱50,000), moral damages (₱50,000), and exemplary damages (₱25,000).

Court of Appeals Ruling

By Decision dated January 13, 2015, the CA affirmed Rolando’s guilt and the finding of conspiracy but downgraded the conviction to Homicide. It held that the Information failed to allege factual circumstances showing how treachery directly and specially insured execution of the crime. Consequently, the CA modified the penalty and damages, awarding temperate damages (₱25,000) instead of exemplary damages.

Issues on Appeal

  1. Whether the prosecution proved Rolando’s guilt beyond reasonable doubt, including identity and conspiracy.
  2. Whether conspiracy existed between Rolando and Mark Kenneth.
  3. Whether the Information sufficiently alleged the qualifying circumstance of treachery.

Supreme Court Ruling

  1. Admissibility and Credibility of Eyewitness Testimony
    The Court, applying the 1987 Constitution’s presumption of innocence and due process guarantees, gave great weight to the RTC’s and CA’s factual findings on witness credibility. Ma. Theresa positively identified Rolando at a five-meter distance, having known him since childhood. Minor inconsistencies in her narrative were explained, deemed badges of truth rather than indications of bad faith. Rolando’s uncorroborated denial did not overcome her credible testimony.

  2. Existence of Conspiracy
    Conspiracy was properly inferred from their joint appearance at the crime scene, their coordinated assault on the victim, and their flight together. Implied conspiracy suffices, and where proven, makes all conspirators liable as co-principals regardless of the extent of their individual acts.

  3. Sufficiency of Allegation of Treachery in the Information
    Although the CA applied a line of decisions requiring detailed factual averments of the qualifying circumstance, the Supreme Court opted for the prevailing rule that an accused waives formal defects in an Information by failing to file a motion to quash or a bill of particulars before pleading. Rolando did not challenge the Information’s specification of treachery and abuse of superior strength at arraignment; he pleaded not guilty and proceeded to trial, thereby waiving any right to contest such formal defects. As a result, the Court reinstated the RTC’s conviction for Murder.

Constitutional and Procedural Basis

  • 1987 Constitution, Art

...continue reading

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.