PEOPLE v.

JARANILLA [1974] Reinerr Nuestro

AQUINO, J.
FACTS:
Jan 9, 1966 11pm Heman Gorriceta had just come from Ford San Pedro in Iloilo City and was
driving a Ford pickup truck belonging to his sister.
In front of the Elizalde Building on J.M. Basa Street, he saw defendants Ricardo Suyo, Elias
Jaranilla and Franco Brillantes. They asked Gorriceta to bring them to Mandurriao, a district in
the city, as Jaranilla told Gorriceta that he had to get something from his uncles place.
Gorriceta initially demurred but the appellants eventually prevailed.
Upon reaching Mandurriao, they parked the pickup truck at a distance 50 70 meters away
from the provincial hospital and Gorriceta was instructed to wait for the defendants as they
alighted.
After twenty minutes, the three accused arrived carrying two roosters each. They ran to the
truck and instructed Gorriceta to drive immediately as they were being chased. Gorriceta then
drove the truck to Jaro, another city district.
o The four of them were on the front seat of the truck. Gorriceta, as the driver, was on the
extreme left and to his right was Suyo. Next to Suyo was Brillantes and on the extreme
right was Jaranilla.
In the middle of the road, they were intercepted by Policemen Ramonito Jabatan and Benjamin
Castro. Gorriceta stopped the truck near the policemn after Jabatan fired a warning shot.
Jabatan went to the right side of the truck near Jaranilla and ordered all of them to step out
which they did not heed.
Brillantes pulled his revolver but did not fire it while Suyo did nothing. Jaranilla, all of a sudden,
shot Patrolman Jabatan. The shooting frightened Gorriceta who immediately started the truck
and drove straight home while Jaranilla kept on firing towards Jabatan.
Jaranilla, Suyo and Brillantes alighted in front of Gorricetas house where the latter was
instructed not to tell anybody about the inicident. Gorriceta went to his room and after a while,
he heard policemen calling his name asking him to come down.
He initially hid in the ceiling of his house and it wasnt until 8am the following day that he
decided to come down and was brought to police headquarters.
Victorino Trespeces, a witness, testified that:
On the date of the crime, he was conducting a friend to the housing project near the
Mandurriao provincial hospital. Near the residence, he saw three men emerge from the canal
of Taft Street in front of Valentin Baylons house.
He also noticed a red Ford truck parked about 50 yards from the place where he saw the three
men and shortly afterwards, the same three men emerged carrying roosters.
He immediately reported the incident to the authorities and Police officers Jabatan and Castro
sought to intercept the truck.
At the place of the shooting, Trepeces was about to return to Mandurriao when he heard
gunshots and Police Officer Castro came up to him and told him that Jabanta had been shot.
Jabanta was later brought to the hospital where he later died.
Valentin Baylon, owner of the fighting cocks, provided that:
At 6am in the morning of Jan. 10, 1966, he discovered that the door of one of his chicken coops
was broken and that six of his roosters were missing. Each coop contained 6 fighting cocks.
He reported the incident to the authorities and was summoned to the police station at
Mandurriao where he positively identified a rooster as his.
During the proceedings of the case, Jaranilla escaped. The trial court convicted Suyo and Brillantes of
robbery with homicide while the charges against Gorriceta were dropped and he was utilized as a
state witness.
There was no promulgation of the judgment as to Jaranilla who had escaped from jail, so he could not
have appealed and his inclusion in this petition filed by Suyo and Brillantes was erroneous. Hence,
only the appeals of the latter were entertained.
CONTENTION HELD/ RATIO
S
The trial court NO. The trial court was correct in not giving credence to this contention for its
erred in not implausibility.
finding that The truck belonged to Gorricetas sister so he was responsible for its preservation
Gorriceta was and he had the obligation to return it in the same condition when he borrowed it. He
the one who was driving when he saw the three accused. There was no proof that Jaranilla knew
shot Policeman how to drive a truck.
Jabatan and And if Gorriceta was indeed drunk, he would have been dozing when Jabatan signaled
that Jaranilla the driver to stop the truck and he would not have been able to think of killing
was driving the Jabatan due to his inebriated state. The established facts show that the first shot hit
Ford truck as Jabatan. The one who shot him must have been a sober person like Jaranilla.
Gorriceta was And since Jaranilla and his comrades were the ones interested in concealing the
drunk. fighting cocks, it was Jaranilla and not Gorriceta who would have the motive for
shooting Jabatan.
The taking of YES. The crime was theft and not robbery.
the roosters
was theft and, There was no evidence that violence or intimidation was employed in the taking of
alternatively, if the roosters hence, Art. 294 of the RPC (Robbery with violence against or
it was intimidation) could not be invoked.
It also could not fall under Art. 299 (which penalizes robbery in an inhabited
robbery, the
crime could not house, public building or edifice devoted to worship) as the chicken coop was
be robbery outside Baylons house. Nor was it a dependency thereof as contemplated under Art.
with homicide 301.
The next article in consideration would be Art. 302 which punishes Any robbery
because the
committed in an uninhabited place or in a building other than those mentioned in the
robbery was
already first paragraph of Art. 299, if the value of the property exceeds 250 pesos,
One essential requisite of robbery with force upon things under Arts. 299 and
consummated
302 is that the malefactor should enter the building or dependency where the object
when Jabatan
to be taken is found. If the culprit did not enter the building, there would be no
was killed.
robbery with force upon things.
In the instant case, the chicken coop cannot be considered a building within the
meaning of Art. 302.
o Building in Art. 302 as construed in US v. Magsino refers to any structure not
mentioned in Art. 299 used for storage and safekeeping of personal property.
o In the Magsino case, it was held that a freight car was a building as
contemplated in art. 512 (now 312) so, unnailing the strip of cloth used to seal it
constitutes breaking by force within the meaning of the provision.
However, the Court, using rulings of the Spanish Supreme Court held that Art. 302
refers to houses or buildings which are actually habitable despite being uninhabited.
Hence, the stealing of a pig in a pig sty is theft and not robbery, although the culprit
breaks into it.
In the case, photos show that the chicken coops could not accommodate a person
inside its compartments. It wasnt intended that a person should go inside the
compartment. Taking the roosters could be effected by putting ones hands inside
and grabbing the roosters.
Therefore, the taking of the roosters from the coop only amounted to theft
and not robbery.
Also, the assumption is that the accused were motivated a single criminal impulse.
Therefore, the taking of the six roosters amounted to a single offense of theft and not
separate offenses.

Aggravating Circumstances include nocturnity, use of a motor vehicle and

recidivism as the accused sought cover of the night and used a motor vehicle to ensure
the success of their design. They also admitted their previous convictions for theft.

Also, the Court agreed with the accused that no robbery with homicide was
 committed.
With respect to the killing of Jabatan, the Court held that it was homicide as it was
made on the spur of the moment and the treacherous mode of attack was not
deliberately adopted by the offender.
As Jabatan was an agent of authority on night duty and was wearing his uniform
during the incident, his killing should be characterized as direct assault upon an
agent of authority complexed with homicide.

There was no evidence of conspiracy among the culprits to kill Jabatan. What was
evident was that they conspired to steal the roosters. The theft was consummated when
the culprits were able to take possession of the roosters. It is unreasonable to assume
that the killing of a peace officer was a part of their plan.

There was no evidence which would link Suyo and Brillantes to the killing of Jabatan.
Gorriceta testified that Suyo did not do anything when Jabatan approached the truck and
that Brillantes pulled his revolver which he did not fire. Their mere presence at the scene
of the crime did not make them co-principals.
This is consistent with the ruling in People v. Basisten, which held that only a
member of a band responsible for homicide could be convicted of robbery with
homicide as killing was not part of the bands design to commit robbery.
Suyo and Brillantes ACQUITTED OF HOMICIDE on ground of reasonable doubt but
CONVICTED as CO-PRINCIPALS in the crime of Theft.
With respect to the liability of Jaranilla for theft and homicide, with direct assault upon an
agent of authority, the trial court was ordered to render a new judgment consistent with
the opinion in this case.