People v. Jaranilla

People of the Phils. v. Jaranilla G.R. No.
L-28547, February 22, 1974
FACTS:
This is an appeal of defendants Elias Jaranilla, Ricardo Suyo and Franco Brillantes from the decision of
the court of first instance of Iloilo, which convicted them of robbery with homicide, sentenced each of them
to reclusion perpetua and ordered them to pay solidarily the sum of six thousand pesos to the heirs of
Ramonito Jabatan and the sum of five hundred pesos to Valentin Baylon as the value of five fighting
cocks.
Gorriceta was driving a ford pick up where he saw Suyo, Jaranilla, Brillantes. Jaranilla requested
Gorriceta to drove them to Mandurriao. Upon reaching their destination , Jaranilla instructed Gorriceta to
wait them. When they returned, each of them was carrying two fighting cocks. Jaranilla directed Gorriceta
to start the truck because they were being chased. Gorriceta slowed down the truck after Patrolman
Jabatan had fired a warning shot and was signalling with his flashlight that the truck should stop.
Brillantes pulled his revolver but did not fire it. Suyo did nothing. Jaranilla, all of a sudden, shot Patrolman
Jabatan. The shooting frightened Gorriceta and immediately drove straight home to La Paz. Jaranilla
warned Gorriceta not to tell anybody. When the policemen came to his house, he hid in the ceiling until
after his uncle counselled him to surrender to the police.
Trespeces lifted Jabatan into the car and brought him to the hospital. Jabatan learned later that Jabatan
was dead. Baylon the owner of the six fighting cocks discovered that the door of one of his cock pens or
chicken coops was broken and that found out that sex of his fighting cocks were missing.
Gorriceta, Jaranilla, Suyo and Brillantes were charged with robo con 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 fiscal utilized Gorriceta as a state witness. Hence, the case was dismissed
as to him.
Jaranilla however, escaped from the provincial Jail. The judgement of conviction was promulgated as to
defendants Suyo and Brillantes when it was read to them in the court and none to Jaranilla. In convicting
Suyo, Jaranilla and Brillantes of robo con homicidio, the trial court assumed that the taking of the six
fighting cocks was robbery and that Patrolman Jabatan was killed “by reason or on the occasion of the
robbery” within the purview of article 294 of the Revised Penal Code.
Therefore, the taking of the six roosters from their coop should be characterized as theft and not robbery.
The assumption is that 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. Nocturnity and use of a motor vehicle are aggravating. Also to be appreciated against appellants
Suyo and Brillantes is the aggravating circumstance of recidivism which was alleged in the information.
There is no evidence to link appellants Suyo and Brillantes to the killing of Jabatan, except the
circumstance that they were with Jaranilla in the truck when the latter shot the policeman. Gorriceta
testified that Suyo did not do anything when Jabatan approached the right side of the truck and came in
close proximity to Jaranilla who was on the extreme right. Brillantes pulled his revolver which he did not
fire (47, 53-55 tsn). Mere presence at the scene of the crime does not necessarily make a person a co-
principal thereof.
WHEREFORE, the judgment of the trial court convicting appellants Ricardo Suyo and Franco Brillantes of
robbery with homicide is reversed. They are acquitted of homicide on the ground of reasonable doubt.
Criminal Law; Robbery; Articles 294 and 299 of the Revised Penal Code; Taking of six roosters from coop
characterized as theft and not robbery; Case at bar.—There is no evidence that in taking the six roosters
from their coop or cages in the yard of Baylon’s house violence against or intimidation of persons was
employed. Hence, article 294 of the Revised Penal Code cannot be invoked. Neither could such taking
fall under article 299 of the Revised Penal Code which penalizes robbery in an inhabited house (casa
habitada), public building or edifice devoted to worship. The coop was not inside Baylon’s house. Nor was
it a dependency thereof within the meaning of article 301 of the Revised Penal Code.

People v. Jaranilla

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

People v. Jaranilla

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

People v. Jaranilla

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

People of the Phils. v. Jaranilla G.R. No.

L-28547, February 22, 1974

You might also like