Title
People vs. Jaranilla
Case
G.R. No. L-28547
Decision Date
Feb 22, 1974
A theft of fighting cocks escalated when one suspect shot a patrolman during a chase; co-accused acquitted of homicide but convicted of theft.

Case Summary (G.R. No. 200571)

Facts of the Incident

On January 9, 1966, Gorriceta drove his sister’s Ford pickup in Iloilo City. He picked up Jaranilla, Suyo, and Brillantes and proceeded to Mandurriao, where the trio stole six roosters from Baylon’s coop without employing violence or intimidation against any person. They returned toward the city, carrying the birds. Near the airport detour, Patrolmen Jabatan and Castro signaled the truck to stop. Jabatan approached the right side; at that moment, Jaranilla, seated at the extreme right, shot and mortally wounded Jabatan. Gorriceta then drove the trio home.

Procedural History

Gorriceta was granted immunity as state witness; charges against him were dismissed. The Court of First Instance of Iloilo convicted Jaranilla, Suyo, and Brillantes of robbery with homicide, sentencing each to reclusion perpetua and ordering indemnity of ₱6,000 to Jabatan’s heirs and ₱500 to Baylon. Jaranilla escaped jail before judgment promulgation; only Suyo and Brillantes validly appealed.

Issues on Appeal

  1. Who drove the truck and who shot Patrolman Jabatan?
  2. Whether the taking of the roosters constituted robbery or theft.
  3. Whether the homicide was part of a single criminal design, rendering Suyo and Brillantes liable for robbery with homicide.

Court’s Findings on the Driver and Shooter

Crediting Gorriceta’s testimony, the Court affirmed that Gorriceta remained the driver and Jaranilla fired the fatal shots. The defense theory—that Gorriceta, allegedly drunk, handed driving to Jaranilla and then shot Jabatan—was deemed implausible given the accurate first shot and Gorriceta’s custodial responsibility for the truck.

Legal Distinction Between Robbery and Theft

Robbery requires violence or intimidation upon a person (Art. 294) or forcible entry into a building or dependency (Arts. 299, 302). The Baylon coop, a small bamboo-and-wood structure (“tangkal”), did not qualify as a building or inhabited house. No violence was used during the taking. Accordingly, the removal of the roosters was theft, not robbery.

Application of Aggravating Circumstances

The theft occurred at night (nocturnity) and employed a motor vehicle. Suyo and Brillantes admitted prior theft convictions (recidivism). Valued at ₱600, the offense is punishable under Article 309(3) by prisión correccional in its medium and maximum periods. Due to aggravating circumstances, the maximum penalty range applies: an indeterminate term of six months of arresto mayor as minimum to four years and two months of prisión correccional as maximum. Solidary indemnity of ₱500 to Baylon and one-third of costs each are imposed.

Liability for the Killing of Patrolman Jabatan

The Court characterized the killing as direct assault upon an agent of authority (Art. 148) complexed with homicide. Evidence proved solely that Jaranilla shot Jabatan on the spur of the moment, without



...continue reading

Analyze Cases Smarter, Faster
Jur helps you analyze cases smarter to comprehend faster—building context before diving into full texts.