Professional Documents
Culture Documents
PP V Jaranilla
PP V Jaranilla
PP V Jaranilla
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.
Gorriceta was
the one who
shot Policeman
Jabatan and
that Jaranilla
was driving the
Ford truck as
Gorriceta was
drunk.
The taking of
the roosters
was theft and,
alternatively, if
it was
robbery, the
crime could not
be robbery
with homicide
because the
robbery was
already
consummated
when Jabatan
was killed.
and he had the obligation to return it in the same condition when he borrowed it. He
was driving when he saw the three accused. There was no proof that Jaranilla knew
how to drive a truck.
And if Gorriceta was indeed drunk, he would have been dozing when Jabatan signaled
the driver to stop the truck and he would not have been able to think of killing
Jabatan due to his inebriated state. The established facts show that the first shot hit
Jabatan. The one who shot him must have been a sober person like Jaranilla.
And since Jaranilla and his comrades were the ones interested in concealing the
fighting cocks, it was Jaranilla and not Gorriceta who would have the motive for
shooting Jabatan.
YES. The crime was theft and not robbery.
There was no evidence that violence or intimidation was employed in the taking of
the roosters hence, Art. 294 of the RPC (Robbery with violence against or
intimidation) could not be invoked.
It also could not fall under Art. 299 (which penalizes robbery in an inhabited
house, public building or edifice devoted to worship) as the chicken coop was
outside Baylons house. Nor was it a dependency thereof as contemplated under Art.
301.
The next article in consideration would be Art. 302 which punishes Any robbery
committed in an uninhabited place or in a building other than those mentioned in the
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
302 is that the malefactor should enter the building or dependency where the object
to be taken is found. If the culprit did not enter the building, there would be no
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.
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.