G.R. No.

L-28547, February 22, 1974

People of the Philippines
vs
Elias Jaranilla, et al.

FACTS:
On January 9, 1966 at eleven O’clock in the evening, Heman Gorriceta,
driving his sister’s Ford pickup, was hailed by defendants: Ricardo Suyo, Elias
Jaranilla and Franco Brillantes. Jaranilla requested Gorriceta to bring them to
Mandurriao reasoning that he had to get something from his uncle’s place. After
arriving in said place, defendants alighted and instructed Gorriceta to wait. After
20 minutes, defendants arrived running and carrying 2 roosters each. They
instructed Gorriceta to drive immediately as they were being chased. Gorriceta
then drove the truck to Jaro. On their way, they were intercepted by policemen
Jabatan and Castro. Gorriceta stopped the truck 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 Jabatan. Frightened,
Gorriceta started the truck and drove straight home while Jaranilla kept on firing
towards Jabatan. The defendants alighted in front of Gorriceta’s house and
instructed the latter not to tell anybody about the incident. After a while, he heard
policemen arriving in his place. Upon his uncle’s advice, Gorriceta surrendered
and recounted the incident to the police.

During the proceeding of the case, Gorriceta, Jaranilla, Suyo and Brillantes
were charged with robbery with homicide. Defendants averred that RTC erred in
not finding that Gorriceta was the one who shot the policeman and that Jaranilla
was driving the Ford truck because Gorriceta was allegedly drunk. After evaluating
the theory of the defendants as to who was driving the truck and who shot the
policeman, the court finds that the trial court did not err in giving credence to
Gorricetta’s declaration that he was driving the truck at the time that Jaranilla shot
police Jabatan. Jaranilla escaped from jail. Charges against Gorricetta were
dropped and he was utilized as state witness. Then, the defendants also averred that
the taking of the roosters was theft and, alternatively, that, if it was robbery, the
crime could not be robbery with homicide because the robbery was already
consummated when Jabatan was killed.

ISSUES:
1. Whether the taking of the roosters was theft or robbery.
2. Whether or not the taking of the six roosters constitutes into separate crimes
of theft.
3. Whether or not the defendants Suyo and Brillantes are liable as co-principal in
the crime of theft with homicide.

RULING:
1. The Supreme Court sought to determine whether said crime was covered by
Art. 302 of the RPC which reads:
ART. 302. Robbery in an uninhabited place or in private building.—
Any robbery committed in an uninhabited place or in a building other than
those mentioned in the first paragraph of article 299, if the value of the
property exceeds 250 pesos, shall be punished by prision correccional in its
medium and maximum periods provided that any of the following
circumstances is present:
 If the entrance has been effected through any opening not intended
for entrance or egress.
 If any wall, roof, floor or outside door or window has been broken.
 If the entrance has been effected through the use of false keys,
picklocks or other similar tools.
 If any door, wardrobe, chest, or any sealed or closed furniture or
receptacle has been broken.
 If any closed or sealed receptacle, as mentioned in the preceding
paragraph, has been removed, even if the same be broken open
elsewhere.
One 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. Arts. 299 and 302 clearly contemplate that the malefactor
should enter the building. 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. Not being a
building, it cannot be said that the accused entered the same in order to commit
the robbery by means of any of the 5 circumstances enumerated in article 302.
Therefore, the taking of 6 roosters from their coop should be characterized as
theft and not robbery.

2. The accused were animated by single criminal impulse. The conduct of the
accused reveals that they conspired to steal the roosters. The taking is
punishable as a single offense of theft. Thus, it was held that the taking of
two roosters in the same place and on the same occasion cannot give rise to
two crimes of theft.

3. The killing of the peace officer is characterized as homicide because

the act was made during the spur of the moment and the treacherous mode
of attack was not consciously or deliberately adopted by the offender.
In addition, only persons who perpetrated the killing is responsible for
such action. Furthermore, mere presence in the crime scene does not
necessarily make a person co-principal thereof. Hence, only the accused,
Elias Jaranilla, who perpetrated the killing is responsible and liable theft and
homicide, with direct assault upon an agent of authority. The co-accused,
Suyo and Brillantes, are convicted of theft only. Therefore, the decision of
the lower court is reversed and sentenced the accused, Ricardo Suyo and
Franco Brillantes, as co-principals in the crime of theft.