PP Vs Solis PDF

9/4/2020 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 128
VOL. 128, MARCH 15, 1984 217

People vs. Solis
*
No. L-33957. March 15, 1984.
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs.

JAIME SOLIS, ARSENIO MANCHOS and BERNARDITO
KINTANAR, accused-appellants.
Evidence; Criminal Law; Accused may be convicted on their

extrajudicial confessions and proof of corpus delicti even if there
were no eyewitnesses to the commission of robbery with homicide.
—There is no question that in the evening of July 27, 1968,
Herminio Corsita was robbed of seven (7) chickens, one (1) bolo,
two (2) pairs of pants, and two (2) shirts belonging to the victim
with the total value of P19.20, and that on the occasion of said
robbery, Herminio Corsita was killed. While it is true that the
prosecution failed to produce an eyewitness to the crime, the three
accused had executed their individual affidavits admitting their
respective roles and participations therein.
Same; Same; Same.—The extrajudicial statements of the
three accused (Exhibits F, F-1, G, G-1, H, H-1) disclose that at
about 10:00 in the evening of July 27, 1968, the three accused
agreed to rob Herminio Corsita, a man of 70 years; that pursuant
to said agreement, the accused, all armed with bolos, proceeded to
the house of Corsita in sitio Costanera, barrio Namo, Bulan,
Sorsogon; that Kintanar stationed himself near the fence of the
house, while Manchos and Solis, the latter holding a flashlight,
went under the house and grabbed a chicken; that because of the
cacklings of the chickens and the barkings of the dogs, Corsita
went downstairs with
_______________
* EN BANC.
www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/00000174590f6a1bd2ec7335003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 1/15
218
218 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED
People vs. Solis
a lamp; that while he was still at the stairway, Solis and Manchos
suddenly pulled down and kicked the old man to the ground; that
Solis gave him several fist blows, then brought him upstairs; that
when the old man refused to reveal where he kept his money,
Solis tied him up with a piece of rattan and hacked him on the
nape with his bolo, while Manchos held him at the back; that
having delivered the fatal blow, Solis went down the house and
caught seven (7) chickens, while Manchos forcibly opened the
victim’s trunk; that after Manchos had taken the trunk to the
yard, they got the shirts and trousers found therein and stuffed
them inside a sack held by Kintanar; and that after the
commission of the crime, they proceeded to the hut of Solis in sitio
Nasuje, Bo. Inararan, where they cooked and ate the chickens.
Same; Same; Criminal Procedure; Where none of the accused
took the witness stand their extrajudicial statements must be taken
to have been executed voluntarily.—It bears emphasis that none of
the accused took the witness stand to repudiate their respective
extrajudicial statements. The declarations must therefore be
considered as having been given voluntarily and without
compulsion or inducement. What is more, their affidavits show no
sign of any suspicious circumstances which would cast doubt upon
their veracity. Their answers to the questions propounded therein
are fully informative and fraught with details that only the
perpetrators themselves could have known.
Criminal Procedure; Due Process; Attorneys; Appellants not
deprived of right to choose even attorney where arraignment took
place on April 11, 1969 and thereafter trial was postponed until
February 5, 1970 due to absences of counsel de parte.—The
appellants contend that they were deprived of due process for
failure of the trial court to afford them the right to be defended by
a lawyer of their own choice. This contention is devoid of factual
basis. Appellants were arraigned on April 11, 1969, but actual
trial did not start until February 5, 1970, or ten (10) months later.
This was due to frequent postponements caused by their failure to
secure the services of a lawyer of their own choice. Their alleged
counsel de parte, Atty. Carranza, never appeared in court. If they

were indeed sincere in their desire to secure the services of a
lawyer of their own choice, that period of ten months was more
than sufficient for them to do so.
Same; Same; Appellants cannot claim deprivation of right to
choose own counsel where they never protested appointment of de
219
VOL. 128, MARCH 15, 1984 219
People vs. Solis
oficio counsel.—Besides, during the proceedings a quo, appellants

never informed the trial court of their desire to be defended by a
lawyer of their own choice; neither did they protest the
appointment or the actuations of their counsel de oficio. It has
been held that where a counsel has been assigned to a person on
trial and such counsel has acted without objection from the
accused, the latter’s conviction cannot be set aside on the sole
ground that said counsel was not of his own choice.
Same; Same; Criminal Law: Where crime is robbery with
homicide all who took part therein are guilty thereof even if some
did not take part in the killing of the victim, except if they tried to
prevent the homicide.—Upon these premises, all the accused are
guilty of the crime charged. The slaying of Herminio Corsita
during or on the occasion of the robbery, wherein they admittedly
participated, makes all of them guilty of the crime charged. Well
entrenched is the rule that whenever a homicide has been
committed as a consequence, or on the occasion, of a robbery, all
those who took part therein are liable as principals of the crime of
robbery with homicide, although some did not actually take part
in the homicide, unless it clearly appears that they endeavored to
prevent the homicide.
AUTOMATIC REVIEW of the decision of the Court of First

Instance of Sorsogon.
The facts are stated in the opinion of the Court.

The Solicitor General for plaintiff-appellee.
ESCOLIN, J.:
Before this Court on automatic review is the decision of the

Court of First Instance (now the Regional Trial Court) of
Sorsogon, imposing the supreme penalty of death on
appellants Jaime Solis, Arsenio Manchos and Bernardito
Kintanar, the dispositive portion of which reads as follows:
“WHEREFORE, the Court finds the accused Jaime Solis, Arsenio

Manchos and Bernardito Kintanar GUILTY beyond reasonable
doubt of the crime of Robbery with Homicide with the presence of
the aggravating circumstances of nighttime, superior strength,
disregard of the victim’s age, ‘morada’ or the crime was committed
in the victim’s own dwelling, and that all the accused were
220

People vs. Solis
armed at that time with bladed weapons; and the Court hereby
(1) imposes upon all these three accused the supreme penalty of
DEATH; (2) orders all of them to indemnify jointly and severally
the legal heirs of Herminio Corsita in the amount of TWELVE
THOUSAND PESOS (P12,000.00) Philippine Currency; and (3) to
pay pro rata the costs of this suit.”
At the trial, the prosecution failed to present an eye-

witness to the crime. Thus, the facts established by the
prosecution relate to the discovery of the crime; the
investigation conducted by the police officers of Bulan,
Sorsogon; the circumstances that led to the arrest of the
accused; and the extra-judicial statements subsequently
executed by them. As synthesized by the trial court, these
facts are the following:
“In the early morning of July 28, 1968, one Matea Hona came
upon the body of Herminio Corsita sprawled on the yard of the
latter’s house in Sitio Costanera, Barrio Namo, Bulan, Sorsogon.
Matea lost no time in reporting her gory discovery to the barrio
captain of Namo, a certain Maceda. This barrio official, along with
Antonia Manallo who is a stepdaughter of the victim, and Beatriz
de Joya who owns the land which the deceased was tenanting,
hied to the poblacion to inform the police about the grisly
incident.
“The unpleasant task of getting the body and bringing it to the

poblacion was assigned to Patrolman Ignacio Gozarin of the
Bulan Police force who left for Costanera at about 9 o’clock that
same morning, presumably with Maceda, and arrived at the scene
of the incident two hours later or at about 11:00 o’clock A.M. The
policeman found the dead body of Herminio Corsita lying on his
back near the fence of the yard some five meters from the house.
An examination of the cadaver revealed a gaping wound at the
back of Corsita’s ear and some marks at the back of his body.
Gozarin’s roving eyes also caught sight of two pieces of
bloodstained wood, some scattered clothing, a wooden trunk, and
pillows at the scene of the crime, as well as a bolo at the back of
the house. He even found a dead chicken inside the house. The
peace officer then marked the pieces of wood for identification and
after drawing circles on the ground where these pieces of evidence
were lying, he cordoned the entire place. Then with the help of the
barrio captain, he brought the cadaver to the poblacion and left it
with the proper authority for autopsy.
221
VOL. 128, MARCH 15, 1984 221

People vs. Solis
“After Gozarin and Maceda had left for the town, Sergeant Romeo
Guban, the Chief of the investigation section of the Bulan police
force, arrived in Costanera with Patrolman Loreto Goboleo.
Having been informed that the body of the victim had already
been brought to town by their brother officer, Guban and Goboleo
conducted an inspection of the scene of the crime, including the
victim’s house and its premises. They found that the door
appeared to have been forcibly opened and a window seemed to
have been broken. They likewise came upon a locker in said house
which was forcibly opened and six plundered pillows which were
stained with blood. There was a dead chicken with a wrung neck
in the kitchen. In the front yard and about three meters from the
house those two policemen found a wooden trunk that was also
forcibly opened (Exhibit “B”). They came upon a bloodstained bolo
(Exhibit “C”) some four meters behind the house as well as a
fifteen-inch-long bloodstained piece of wood with a knot (Exhibit
“D”) under the main stairway. Another piece of wood some sixteen
inches in length with bloodstains at both ends (Exhibit “E”) was
also found in the front yard about four meters from the house.
The two police investigators likewise found signs of struggle both

inside and outside the house of the victim.
“In the course of his testimony in Court, Patrolman Goboleo
drew a rough sketch of the house and its premises (Exhibit “I”,
prosecution; Exhibit “1”, defense) graphically indicating therein
the bedroom where a bloodstained bed was located (Exhibit “I-1”)
and showing the position and direction of the stairs (Exhibit “I-
2”).
“The first suspects of the local police were Bartolome Readanga
and Marcos Lovending, both of Barrio Recto, Bulan, Sorsogon
which is about two kilometers away from the scene of the felony.
Sgt. Guban’s basis for suspecting them was the presence of
chickens and bloodstains in their house. Both suspects, however,
denied the imputation and apparently the authorities accepted
their explanations.
“About two months after the commission of the crime, the local
police authorities received the first of three anonymous letters
about the robbery and the killing of Corsita. The first letter
contained a threat against Sgt. Guban and other members of the
Bulan police force. Some two weeks after receipt of the first letter,
the second one arrived and this gave a tip to the police that the
perpetrators of the crime were living in sitio Nasohi, barrio
Inararan, Bulan, Sorsogon. Patrolman Gozarin maintained that
while he was in the office of the Chief of Police on November 25,
1968 he learned that another
222

People vs. Solis
anonymous letter about the incident was received. Because of

these three letters, the investigation of the case was revived.
Acting on the tip mentioned in the second letter, Sgt. Guban sent
to Nasohi some police informers who reported to him sometime
thereafter that the three accused were the authors of the
dastardly crime. Guban was also informed that Jaime Solis had
related to one Dominador Gaton, alias Vaquero, that he (Solis)
was the one who killed Herminio Corsita. The police sergeant
then went to Gaton’s house in Nasohi where he found the latter’s
wife. This woman confirmed the information and told him the
truth about the matter.
“Having learned from reliable sources that of the three
suspects Kintanar is the least experienced in crime and
concluding that as such this particular suspect is the most likely

to break down easily and confess, Sgt. Guban decided to pick up
Kintanar first. On February 6, 1969 Kintanar was taken into
custody while he was in the house of his brother in Nasohi.
Brought to the municipal hall in the poblacion and subjected to
investigation, Kintanar confessed before long his participation in
the commission of the crime and revealed that his companions at
the time were Jaime Solis and Arsenio Manchos. The
investigators took down his affidavit in question and answer form
and Kintanar swore to the truth of his statements therein that
same day before the Municipal Judge of Bulan (Exhibit “F”;
English translation, Exhibit “F-1”). x x x.
“With this successful break in the case, Sgt. Guban ordered
that the two other accused be picked up for purposes of
investigating them. On February 8, 1969 Jaime Solis was
arrested in sitio Nasohi, while Arsenio Manchos was picked up by
Patrolman Gozarin in Barrio Somagonsong, Bulan, Sorsogon, on
the same date. With the help of Patrolman Goboleo, Sergeant
Guban conducted the investigation of Solis and Manchos and it
did not take long for the two suspects to break down and confess
their respective roles in the heinous crime. The investigating
team also wrote down in question and answer form the sworn
statements of these two persons. Solis’ affidavit was subscribed by
him before the Municipal Judge of Bulan on February 10, 1969
(Exhibit “G”; English Translation, Exhibit “G-1”), while Manchos
swore to the truth of his own affidavit (Exhibit “H”;) English
Translation. Exhibit “H-1”) before said Municipal Judge on the
same date it was taken or on February 8, 1969. x x x.
“Meanwhile, Corsita’s cadaver which Patrolman Gozarin left in
the municipal hall of Bulan was delivered to Dr. Runy P.
Rebustillo who was then the Municipal Health Officer of said
municipality. The good doctor stated in his autopsy report dated
August 7, 1968
223
VOL. 128, MARCH 15, 1984 223

People vs. Solis
(Exhibit “A”) that he performed the necropsy at about 3:15 PM on

July 29, 1968. According to his findings, the victim sustained a
“fracture dislocation of the 1st cervical vertebrae of the spinal
column connecting the base of the skull with contusions and
hemorrhages.” In the opinion of this physician, this particular

injury was caused by a blow with a blunt instrument.
“The victim also suffered an incised wound about three inches
in length and one and one-half inches in depth located above the
base of the neck posteriorly, or at the nape. The good doctor
considers this injury fatal because it cut the arterius veins on the
right side of the neck. He opined that this wound was inflicted
with a sharp instrument like a bolo. Dr. Rebustillo also found a
lacerated wound in the region of the victim’s right eye, abrasions
in his right foot, and contusions as well as hematoma on the right
shoulder, right occipitolateral region base of the skull, and on the
postero-lateral portion of the neck, base of the neck. He said that
Corsita died due to shock and hemorrhages, both internal and
external, secondary to the basal fructure of the skull and the
incised wound.
“According to the doctor, he learned from the relatives of the
victim that the cadaver he had autopsied was that of Herminio
Corsita, who, in his opinion, died some forty-eight hours before
the autopsy was performed. The doctor based his opinion on the
fact that at the time he was performing the autopsy there was
already signs of decomposition.”
Thus, appellants were charged with the crime of robbery

with homicide, aggravated by the circumstances of superior
strength, nighttime and disregard of the age of the victim,
the latter being 70 years of age at the time of the incident.
The three accused, assisted by counsel de oficio, Atty.
Odelon Ginete pleaded not guilty to the information. At the
initial hearing on June 19, 1969, Atty. Ginete moved for
postponement of the trial on the ground that the accused
were considering the possibility of changing their prior plea
of “not guilty” to “guilty”. The court granted the motion and
the hearing was reset to July 24 and 25, 1969.
On July 24, 1969, Atty. Ginete failed to appear.
However, accused Solis informed the court that Atty.
Carranza, their counsel de parte, would appear on the next
day to represent all the accused. On July 25, 1969, Atty.
Carranza did not appear in court. Upon assurance by the
accused that they had already
224

People vs. Solis
contracted the services of Atty. Carranza, the court granted

the withdrawal of Atty. Ginete as counsel de oficio, and
transferred the trial to November 3, 1969. On said date, the
accused manifested that they had not yet secured the
services of counsel and that “their friends and families are
trying to raise money to pay for the services of a counsel of
their choice.” Hence, the court again transferred the
hearing to December 4 and 5, 1969; but in order to avoid
further delay, the court appointed Attys. Ruben Paps,
Antonio Dugan and Tedosio Diño, Jr. as attorney’s de oficio
for each of the accused.
On February 5, 1970, Atty. Paps informed the court that
he and his co-attorneys de oficio had agreed among
themselves that only Atty. Diño would handle the defense
for all the accused. After the accused had expressed their
conformity to such manifestation, the court granted the
withdrawal of Attys. Paps and Dugan as counsel de oficio.
Whereupon trial was commenced.
Upon termination of the evidence for the prosecution,
Atty. Diño manifested that the accused were waiving their
right to adduce evidence. Then he asked for dismissal of
the charge on ground of gross inadequacy of the evidence to
justify conviction. The court denied the motion and reset
the continuation of hearing on June 26, 1970 in order to
afford counsel sufficient time to study the record of the case
and examine the exhibits presented by the prosecution. On
the last mentioned date, Atty. Diño, manifested anew that
the accused were waiving their right to adduce evidence,
and that the case be considered submitted for decision. He
likewise moved for dismissal of the information on ground
of insufficiency of the prosecution’s evidence. Acting on said
manifestation and motion, the court declared the case
submitted for judgment and ordered the parties to submit
written memoranda.
On November 13, 1970, the trial court promulgated its
decision imposing the death penalty on the three accused
for the crime of robbery with homicide.
We find no reason to disturb the judgment of conviction.
There is no question that in the evening of July 27,
1968, Herminio Corsita was robbed of seven (7) chickens,
one (1)
225
VOL. 128, MARCH 15, 1984 225

People vs. Solis
bolo, two (2) pairs of pants, and two (2) shirts belonging to
the victim with the total value of P19.20, and that on the
occasion of said robbery, Herminio Corsita was killed.
While it is true that the prosecution failed to produce an
eyewitness to the crime, the three accused had executed
their individual affidavits admitting their respective roles
and participations therein.
The extrajudicial statements of the three accused
(Exhibits F, F-1, G, G-1, H, H-1) disclose that at about
10:00 in the evening of July 27, 1968, the three accused
agreed to rob Herminio Corsita, a man of 70 years; that
pursuant to said agreement, the accused, all armed with
bolos, proceeded to the house of Corsita in sitio Costanera,
barrio Namo, Bulan, Sorsogon; that Kintanar stationed
himself near the fence of the house, while Manchos and
Solis, the latter holding a flashlight, went under the house
and grabbed a chicken; that because of the cacklings of the
chickens and the barkings of the dogs, Corsita went
downstairs with a lamp; that while he was still at the
stairway, Solis and Manchos suddenly pulled down and
kicked the old man to the ground; that Solis gave him
several fist blows, then brought him upstairs; that when
the old man refused to reveal where he kept his money,
Solis tied him up with a piece of rattan and hacked him on
the nape with his bolo, while Manchos held him at the
back; that having delivered the fatal blow, Solis went down
the house and caught seven (7) chickens, while Manchos
forcibly opened the victim’s trunk; that after Manchos had
taken the trunk to the yard, they got the shirts and
trousers found therein and stuffed them inside a sack held
by Kintanar; and that after the commission of the crime,
they proceeded to the hut of Solis in sitio Nasuje, Bo.
Inararan, where they cooked and ate the chickens.
It bears emphasis that none of the accused took the
witness stand to repudiate their respective extrajudicial
statements. The declarations must therefore be considered
as having been given voluntarily and without compulsion
or inducement. What is more, their affidavits show no sign
of any suspicious circumstances which would cast doubt
upon their veracity. Their answers to the questions

propounded therein are fully
226

People vs. Solis
informative and fraught with details that only the

perpetrators themselves could have known.
We hold that defendants’ confessions, corroborated as
they are by evidence of corpus delicti, suffice to support the
judgment of conviction. The fact of the robbery as well as
the violent death of the victim constitute the corpus delicti.
This Court has consistently ruled that the accused can be
held liable under their own confessions even if no
eyewitness had testified on having seen them committing
the crime, or had seen them under the circumstances
indicating their having committed the crime. (People vs.
Narciso, 24 SCRA 844; People vs. Dorado, 30 SCRA 53).
The conduct displayed by the three accused before,
during and after the commission of the crime reveals
coordination of efforts and community of design to commit
the crime charged. As correctly observed by the trial court
—
“x x x The presence of conspiracy by the three accused in the case

at bar is not open to doubt or quibbling because all of them
admitted in their respective affidavits that while they were on
their way to sitio Costanera, they agreed to rob Corsita. This they
accomplished without the least bit of resistance from their victim,
but when they were recognized by Corsita, Solis did not hesitate
to kill him with the futile hope in mind to seal their dastardly act
in the silence of the tomb. x x x.
“Our appellate court have repeatedly held that ‘it is a primary
rule that if two or more persons combine to perform a criminal
act, each is responsible for all the acts of the others done in
furtherance of the common design’, and ‘the result is the same if
the act is divided into parts and each person proceeds with his
part unaided’ (People vs. Cabrera, 43 Phil. 64, 96; People vs.
Tapalla, CA-G.R. No. 333-R, Jan. 26, 1948, 45 O.G. 3118).
“In the case of Kintanar, he agreed to the conspiracy and
stayed near the fence. Apparently, he acted as a guard or look out
for his co-conspirators. He contended in his confession that he ran
away after hearing a noise coming from the house of Corsita

followed by sounds of groaning. But this attempt to wash himself
clean of the more serious crime of homicide was contradicted by
Solis who asserted in his confession that Kintanar held the sack
while he (Solis) was placing therein the stolen chickens as well as
some clothes that were taken from the trunk of the old man which
was forcibly opened by
227
VOL. 128, MARCH 15, 1984 227

People vs. Solis
Manchos. And to cap the joint liability of Kintanar for the killing
of Corsita, he did not even bother to deny the statements made by
Solis and Manchos in their affidavits that he (Kintanar) also
benefited from the proceeds of their abominable act by partaking
of the stolen chickens which were cooked by them in Solis’ small
hut in Nasohi.
“There were several reasons for finding and believing that
Kintanar really conspired with his co-accused at least to rob their
victim of some things, if not altogether to kill him. These three
conspirators went to the house of the deceased with the common
design to commit the robbery and they cooperated with one
another in perpetrating it, to the extent of taking the life of the
robbery victim. So, all of them should be made jointly accountable
for the cowardly murder of the old man.
“The evidence holding Manchos responsible for the killing of
Corsita is even stronger for he actively participated in
manhandling the poor victim by first kicking Corsita as he fell
from the stairs upon being pulled by Solis and second, but worse,
by holding Corsita’s back when Solis hacked the old man at the
nape with his bolo. Therefore, Manchos was physically present
when the hacking took place, and yet he did not lift a finger to
prevent the unnecessary slaying. He also brought out to the yard
Corsita’s trunk which he forcibly opened and ransacked. Like
Kintanar, Manchos likewise profited from the crime by joining his
conspirators in feasting on the chickens they had stolen from the
widower.”
The appellants contend that they were deprived of due

process for failure of the trial court to afford them the right
to be defended by a lawyer of their own choice. This
contention is devoid of factual basis. Appellants were
arraigned on April 11, 1969, but actual trial did not start
until February 5, 1970, or ten (10) months later. This was
due to frequent postponements caused by their failure to
secure the services of a lawyer of their own choice. Their
alleged counsel de parte, Atty. Carranza, never appeared in
court. If they were indeed sincere in their desire to secure
the services of a lawyer of their own choice, that period of
ten months was more than sufficient for them to do so.
Besides, during the proceedings a quo, appellants never
informed the trial court of their desire to be defended by a
lawyer of their own choice; neither did they protest the
appointment or the actuations of their counsel de oficio. It
has
228

People vs. Solis
been held that where a counsel has been assigned to a

person on trial and such counsel has acted without
objection from the accused, the latter’s conviction cannot be
set aside on1 the sole ground that said counsel was not of his
own choice.
As to the claim that the trial court erred in not requiring
them to testify in order to ascertain from them the veracity
and voluntariness of their confessions, suffice it to state
that not one of the accused had even intimated that said
confessions were extracted through violence or coercion. In
view of their express waiver to present evidence in their
defense, the trial court had no alternative but to decide the
case on the basis of the evidence adduced by the
prosecution (Abriol vs. Homeras, 84 Phil. 529). In People
vs. Omar (L-7137, April 30, 1955) this Court held—
“The trouble with appellant’s case is that he chose not to present

evidence to account for his presence on the spot immediately after
the fusilade—even in the face of incriminatory evidence linking
him to it. Not that unfavorable deduction of guilt may be drawn
from defendant’s silence. The principle is that although the
accused is not required to testify in his own behalf, nor required
to produce witnesses, yet he runs the risk of an inference from
non-production of evidence (U.S. vs. Sarikala, 37 Phil. 486). What
we mean is that, when the mass of evidentiary details point to the
general conclusion of guilt, the accused who fails to produce

exculpatory evidence cannot expect the court to imagine or
surmise possible circumstances which might justify rejection of
such factual conclusion.”
Upon these premises, all the accused are guilty of the crime
charged. The slaying of Herminio Corsita during or on the
occasion of the robbery, wherein they admittedly
participated, makes all of them guilty of the crime charged.
Well entrenched is the rule that whenever a homicide has
been committed as a consequence, or on the occasion, of a
robbery, all those who took part therein are liable as
principals of the crime of robbery with homicide, although
some did not actually take part in the homicide, unless it
clearly appears that they endeavored to
_______________
1 U.S. vs. Laranja, 21 Phil. 500.
229
VOL. 128, MARCH 15, 1984 229

People vs. Solis
2
prevent the homicide.
IN VIEW OF ALL THE FOREGOING, the decision
appealed from is hereby AFFIRMED. However, for lack of
necessary votes, the death sentence imposed upon the
accused-appellants Jaime Solis, Arsenio Manchos and
Bernardito Kintanar, who have been under custody for
fifteen (15) years, is hereby reduced to reclusion perpetua.
Costs against the accused. The civil indemnity awarded to
the heirs of the victim is hereby increased to P30,000.00.
SO ORDERED.
Aquino, Concepcion, Jr., Guerrero, Abad Santos, De

Castro, Melencio-Herrera, Plana, Relova, Gutierrez, Jr. and
De la Fuente, JJ., concur.
Fernando, C.J., Teehankee and Makasiar, JJ., on
leave.
Decision affirmed.
Notes.—Homicide, not charge of robbery with homicide,

the proper crime committed, robbery, being an
indispensable requirement for the crime charged, not
conclusively proven. (People vs. Venezuela, 115 SCRA 865.)
There is Robbery with Homicide if the homicide resulted
by reason, or on the occasion, of the robbery. (People vs.
Gatcho, 103 SCRA 207.)
——o0o——
_______________
2 People vs. Bautista, 49 Phil. 389; 396; People vs. Carunungan, 109
Phil. 534, People vs. Veloso, 112 SCRA 173.
230
© Copyright 2020 Central Book Supply, Inc. All rights reserved.

PP Vs Solis PDF

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

PP Vs Solis PDF

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

PP Vs Solis PDF

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

9/4/2020 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 128

VOL. 128, MARCH 15, 1984 217

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs.

Evidence; Criminal Law; Accused may be convicted on their

218 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

People vs. Solis

counsel de parte, Atty. Carranza, never appeared in court. If they

VOL. 128, MARCH 15, 1984 219

People vs. Solis

oficio counsel.—Besides, during the proceedings a quo, appellants

AUTOMATIC REVIEW of the decision of the Court of First

The facts are stated in the opinion of the Court.

Before this Court on automatic review is the decision of the

“WHEREFORE, the Court finds the accused Jaime Solis, Arsenio

220 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

At the trial, the prosecution failed to present an eye-

“The unpleasant task of getting the body and bringing it to the

VOL. 128, MARCH 15, 1984 221

The two police investigators likewise found signs of struggle both

222 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

anonymous letter about the incident was received. Because of

concluding that as such this particular suspect is the most likely

VOL. 128, MARCH 15, 1984 223

(Exhibit “A”) that he performed the necropsy at about 3:15 PM on

hemorrhages.” In the opinion of this physician, this particular

Thus, appellants were charged with the crime of robbery

224 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

contracted the services of Atty. Carranza, the court granted

VOL. 128, MARCH 15, 1984 225

upon their veracity. Their answers to the questions

226 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

informative and fraught with details that only the

“x x x The presence of conspiracy by the three accused in the case

away after hearing a noise coming from the house of Corsita

VOL. 128, MARCH 15, 1984 227

The appellants contend that they were deprived of due

228 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

been held that where a counsel has been assigned to a

“The trouble with appellant’s case is that he chose not to present

general conclusion of guilt, the accused who fails to produce

1 U.S. vs. Laranja, 21 Phil. 500.

VOL. 128, MARCH 15, 1984 229

Aquino, Concepcion, Jr., Guerrero, Abad Santos, De

Notes.—Homicide, not charge of robbery with homicide,

© Copyright 2020 Central Book Supply, Inc. All rights reserved.

You might also like