THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, VS. LEONARDO SOLIS @ NARDING, CARLITO SOLIS, ALFREDO SOLIS @ ADO AND GENEROSO SOLIS @ IROY, DEFENDANTS-APPELLANTS.

Solis versus People

The Case

This is Solis versus People, a criminal appeal in which four men from one family — three brothers and their cousin — were convicted of murder for the midnight killing of a young man during a wedding dance. The case matters to a reviewee because it gathers in one decision the working rules on the weight of a police blotter entry against testimony in open court, the strict requirements of alibi and self-defense, the meaning of conspiracy, the nature of treachery, the limits of cruelty as an aggravating circumstance, and the requisites of voluntary surrender. It is a compact review of the general principles of criminal liability, and the Supreme Court decided it in March 1991, after the abolition of the death penalty.

Procedural History

The four accused were charged with murder before the Regional Trial Court of Dagupan City, Branch 44, under a second amended information alleging conspiracy, treachery, evident premeditation, and taking advantage of superior strength, with recidivism against Leonardo Solis only. After trial, the court found all four guilty beyond reasonable doubt of murder. It appreciated cruelty against all of them and recidivism against Leonardo alone, and sentenced each to reclusion perpetua, with accessory penalties, to indemnify the heirs of the deceased jointly and severally in the sum of 30,000 pesos, and to pay the costs. The accused appealed directly to the Supreme Court, assigning four errors: that the trial court should have believed the police blotter entry naming Leonardo as the only assailant; that it erred in convicting Carlito, Alfredo, and Generoso; that it erred in imposing the same penalty on all without considering voluntary surrender for the three; and that it erred in treating the crime as murder rather than simple homicide.

Facts

On the night of March 4, 1988, a pre-wedding dance was held in front of the house of Jose Bao-ingan in barangay Binday, San Fabian, Pangasinan. Benjamin Bao-ingan, brother of the bride, was at the dance. Stones were thrown at the dancing hall. Benjamin took the microphone and told the people not to take the matter seriously, and the dance continued. Three minutes later, stones fell again. Benjamin said, come and we will see those people throwing stones, and walked westward from the dancing hall.

Two prosecution witnesses, Alejandro Ternida and Rolando Bao-ingan, followed and saw what happened next. Generoso Solis struck Benjamin on the head with a stone and Alfredo Solis boxed him. Carlito Solis drew a weapon and stabbed him in the chest. When Benjamin tried to run, Leonardo Solis met him and thrust a bolo into him. The four then fled westward. The place was illumined by light from the dancing hall, about twenty meters away, and from the house of Raymundo Rollog, about five meters away; the witnesses stood only three to five meters from the stabbing. Benjamin was rushed to a hospital, which refused to admit him because he was already dead. An autopsy showed a contusion and abrasions on the head and face and two deep stab wounds to the chest, one hitting the diaphragm and liver and the other the heart and lungs; the cause of death was cardio respiratory arrest due to cardiac tamponade and shock from internal hemorrhage due to the stab wounds.

The defense told a different story. Carlito claimed that Benjamin accused him of the stoning, lunged at him with a knife, and that he wrested the knife away and stabbed Benjamin in self-defense. Generoso denied boxing the victim. Alfredo claimed he was at home moisturing tobacco leaves and plowing his field. Leonardo claimed alibi, saying he was at a vigil when the police arrived to arrest him. The defense also relied on a police blotter entry naming Leonardo as the only assailant, and on the surrender of Carlito, Alfredo, and Generoso to the police in July 1988, four months after the killing.

Issues

• Whether or not the trial court erred in not giving credence to the police blotter entry naming Leonardo Solis as the only assailant, over the testimony of Alejandro Ternida in open court.
• Whether or not the trial court erred in convicting Carlito Solis, Alfredo Solis, and Generoso Solis.
• Whether or not the trial court erred in imposing the same penalty on all the accused without appreciating voluntary surrender in favor of Carlito, Alfredo, and Generoso.
• Whether or not the trial court erred in treating the crime as murder rather than simple homicide, and in appreciating treachery, cruelty, and conspiracy.

Applicable Provisions

Paragraph 1 of Article 11 of the Revised Penal Code, on self-defense, provides:

The following do not incur any criminal liability: 1. Anyone who acts in defense of his person or rights, provided that the following circumstances concur: First. Unlawful aggression; Second. Reasonable necessity of the means employed to prevent or repel it; Third. Lack of sufficient provocation on the part of the person defending himself.

This is the provision under which Carlito claimed justification, and its three requisites frame the Court's rejection of his defense.

Article 248 of the Revised Penal Code, on murder, is the provision under which the accused were charged, and it supplies the qualifying circumstance of treachery that raised the killing from homicide to murder.

Ruling

On the first issue, the Court held that the police blotter entry does not negate the participation of the three other appellants. An entry in the police blotter, like an affidavit, is taken ex parte — that is, from one side only — and may be incomplete and inaccurate. It is inferior to the testimony of Alejandro Ternida given in open court. The appellants' own testimonies debunked their claim: Carlito admitted stabbing Benjamin, and Generoso admitted a struggle between Carlito and Benjamin, showing Leonardo was not the only assailant.

On the second issue, the Court held that the conviction of all four must stand. Both prosecution witnesses positively identified the four appellants, whom they had known for years, and the scene was well lighted. Against positive identification, the denials of Generoso and Leonardo cannot prevail. Leonardo's alibi of being at a vigil was self-serving, easily fabricated, and uncorroborated. Alfredo's alibi failed the strict test of time and place, and his corroborating witness, the husband of his sister, was not impartial and contradicted Alfredo on the details. Carlito's self-defense failed because the supposed aggressor suffered a contusion, abrasions, and two penetrating stab wounds while Carlito emerged without a scratch, and because he fled and threw away the weapon. The Court quoted the rule:

A person who seeks justifications for his act must prove by clear and convincing evidence the presence of the necessary justifying circumstance for having admitted wounding or killing his adversary, and he is criminally liable unless he is able to satisfy the Court that he acted in legitimate self-defense.

On the third issue, the Court held that there was no voluntary surrender. The surrender must be spontaneous, showing an intent to surrender unconditionally, either because the accused acknowledges his guilt or wishes to save the authorities the trouble and expense of his search and capture. Carlito fled and surrendered only after four months; Alfredo knew in May that he was a suspect but waited until July; and Generoso and Carlito were presented by their uncle to the police who came with a warrant of arrest.

On the fourth issue, the Court held that treachery attended the killing, because the victim was attacked without warning while unarmed and defenseless against assailants armed with a stone, knife, and bolo. But the Court found no aggravating circumstance of cruelty, since there was no showing that the appellants deliberately and inhumanly increased the victim's suffering, and the number of wounds alone does not justify cruelty. Conspiracy was established by the concerted acts of boxing, beating, and stabbing, which showed unity of action and singleness of purpose; a previous agreement is not necessary. Recidivism was correctly appreciated against Leonardo alone.

Doctrine

A police blotter entry, like an affidavit, is taken ex parte and is inferior to testimony given in open court; it cannot by itself negate the participation of other assailants. Alibi must strictly meet the requisites of time and place, and is weak when established mainly by the accused and his relatives. Self-defense under paragraph 1 of Article 11 of the Revised Penal Code requires unlawful aggression, reasonable necessity of the means employed, and lack of sufficient provocation on the part of the defender, and the accused who admits the killing must prove these by clear and convincing evidence. Conspiracy may be inferred from the concerted acts of the accused showing a common intent, and the act of one becomes the act of all. Treachery qualifies a killing as murder when the attack is deliberate, sudden, and unexpected, leaving the victim no chance to defend himself. Cruelty requires a showing that the accused deliberately and inhumanly increased the victim's suffering; the number of wounds alone does not suffice. Voluntary surrender requires a spontaneous and unconditional submission to the authorities, and delay negates it.

Disposition

The Supreme Court affirmed the decision of the trial court finding all four accused guilty beyond reasonable doubt of murder, modified only by removing the aggravating circumstance of cruelty and by raising the indemnity to the heirs of the deceased to 50,000 pesos.

Remember This

Memorize the line that a police blotter entry, like an affidavit, is taken ex parte and is inferior to testimony in open court. Examiners like to use this case on the requisites of alibi and self-defense, on conspiracy inferred from concerted acts, and on why the number of wounds alone does not establish cruelty.