PEOPLE v. JARANILLA | G.R. No.

L-28547 | February 22, 1974

Plaintiff-appellee: People of the Philippines
Defendant-appellants: Elias Jaranilla, Ricardo Suyo, Franco Brillantes
Accused: Elias Jaranilla, Ricardo Suyo, Franco Brillantes, Heman Gorricheta

FACTS:
January 9, 1966
● Gorricheta was driving his sister’s Ford pickup truck on his way home when the passed by
Jaranilla. Suyo and Brillantes. Jaranilla prevailed upon him to bring them to Mandurriao, a district
in another part of Iloilo City. Gorricheta initially declined but relented later on.
● Upon reaching Mandurriao, Gorricheta parked the truck around 50 to 70 meters from the
provincial hospital. The other three alighted, walked in the direction of the plaza, and returned
some 20 minutes later, each carrying 2 fighting cocks. Jaranilla instructed Gorricheta to start the
truck as they were being chased. He drove towards Jaro.
● The position of the accused in front of the truck is as follows: Gorricheta as the driver is one the
extreme left; next to him was Suyo; next to Suyo was Brillantes; on the extreme right to Jaranilla.
● Along the way, they saw Patrolment Jabatan and Castro running otwards them. Gorricheta
stopped the truck only after Jabatan had fired a warning shot. Jabatan approached the right side
of the truck where Jaranilla was seated and instructed them to alight. They did not heed his
warning.
● Brillantes pulled out a gun but did not fire it. Jaranilla suddenly shot Jabatan. Firghtened,
Gorricheta started the truck and drove home to La Paz. The three others all alighted in front of
Gorricheta’s house. Jaranilla warned Gorricheta not to tell anybody about the incident. Later,
poilcemen came shouting his name and asking him to come down. He hid but eventually
surrendered the following morning. He was taken to the police HQ where he recounted the
incident to a police investigator.
● Account of witness Victorino Trespeces: Before midnight, he saw three men emerge from a canal
in front of Valentin Baylon’s (his neighbor) house. He noticed a red Ford pickup truck parked
about 50 yards from where he saw the three men. Shortly thereafter, he saw the three men
carrying roosters. He immediately reported to the police station. He took Patrolmen Jabatan and
Castro to the place where he saw the three men but they were gone. Trespeces and the
policemen followed the truck towards Jaro. Upon reaching the detour near the airport, the
policemen left he car and Trespeces turned his car around to return to Mandurriao. He then heard
gunshots. He again turned his car around towards where the gunshots emanated and Castro
running. He helped Castro bring a wounded Jabatan to the hospital but Jabatan was later
declared dead.
● Autopsy report on Jabatan: Died of shock, hemorrhage, secondary to bullet wound.

January 10, 1966

● Gorricheta confesses the incident at the police HQ.
● Valentin Baylon reported the loss of six of his fighting cocks to the Mandurriao police. Two days
later, he positively identified the roosters which were recovered somewhere near the airport.

**Gorricheta, Suyo, Brillantes and Jaranilla were charged of robo homicidio with the aggravating
circumstances of use of a motor vehicle, nocturnity, band, contempt of or with insult to the public
authorities and recidivism. The case was dismissed against Gorricheta as he was used a state witness.

February 2, 1967
 ● Jaranilla escaped from provicial jail.

October 19. 1967

● Suyo and Brillantes were convicted of robo homicidio. They later appealed the decision,
contending that (1) the trial court erred in not finding that Jaranilla was the one driving the truck
because Gorricheta was allegedly drunk; (2) the taking of the roosters was theft ; and (3) if the
crime was robbery, it could not be robbery with homicide as the robbery was already
consummated when Jabatan was killed.

ISSUE
W/N the taking of the roosters constituted robbery as assumed by the trial court.

HELD & RATIO

● NO. The taking of the rooster does constitute robbery as defined in Art. 294 of RPC as there was
no evidence that violence against or intimidation of persons was employed. Neither could it fall
under Art. 299 which penalizes robbery in an inhabited house as the chicken coop was not inside
Baylon’s house. Lastly, the taking of the roosters also does not fall under Art. 302 which covers
robbery from an uninhabited building because the chicken coop cannot be considered a building.
● Continuing crimes: The taking of the roosters from the coop is considered a single offense. The
assumption is that the accused were animated by a single criminal impulse. The conduct of the
accused reveals that they conspired to the roosters. Thus, it was held that the taking of the
roosters from the same place at the same time cannot give rise to two crimes of theft.