People v.

Jaranilla
Aquino, J.
X. Crimes Against Property, A. Robbery in General

Doctrines: Chicken coop, not a building/dependency as contemplated in RPC Art 302 -Robbery requires 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. It cannot
be said that the accused entered the same in order to commit the robbery.
Case Summary: While escaping after stealing roosters with his co-defendants, Jaranilla killed a police. Now, defendants
seeks to appeal CFI decision which convicted themof robbery and with homicide. SC held that the taking of roosters from
their coop should be characterized as theft and not robbery. Robbery requires that the malefactor should enter the building or
dependency, where the object to be taken is found. SC further held that a chicken coop will not qualify as a
building/dependency. RTC decision is reversed and sentenced Suyo and Brillantes as co-principals in the crime of theft.

Facts:
1. Jan 9, 1966 (11pm); Elizalde Building, J.M. Basa Street, Iloilo City – 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 Jaranilla had to get something from his uncle’s place.
2. Mandurriao (District) – After parking 50-70 m away from the hospital, 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, another city district.
 4 of them were on the front seat of the truck. Gorriceta, as the driver, was on the extreme left and to hisright was
Suyo. Next to Suyo was Brillantes and on the extreme right was Jaranilla.
3. Detour road, Mandurriao Airport (under construction): They were intercepted by policemen Jabatan and Castro.
Gorriceta stopped the truck after Jabatan fired a warning shot and signalled with his flashlight that they have to stop.
Jabatan went to the right side of the truck near Jaranilla and ordered all of them to step out which they did not heed.
4. 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.
5. The defendants alighted in front of Gorriceta’s house and instructed the latter not to tell anybody about the incident.
Gorriceta went to his room. After a while, he heard policemen asking him to come down. He hid in the ceiling.
6. 8am, Next Day: Upon his uncle’s advice, Gorriceta came down, surrendered and recounted the incident to the police.

Victorino Trespeces, a witness*, testified that:

 whose house was located opposite the house of Valentin Baylon on Taft Street in Mandurriao
7. Jan 9, 1966 (11pm): He conducted a friend to the housing project near Mandurriao’s hospital. As he neared his residence,
he saw 3 men emerge from the canal of Taft Street in front of Valentin Baylon’s house. He also noticed a red Ford truck
parked about 50 yards from the place where he saw the 3 men. Shortly, the same men emerged carrying roosters.
8. He immediately reported the incident to policemen Jabatan and Castro. The policemen asked him to bring them where
he found said suspicious men but upon arrival thereat, the men and truck were gone.
9. He and the policemen chased the speeding truck towards Jaro. The policemen alighted the car and crossed a shortcut
(runway) to intercept the truck.
10. He was about to return to Mandurriao when he heard gunshots. Castro came to his view and asked him to help his
wounded comrade, Jabatan. Jabatan was later brought to the hospital where he later died*.
 Contusion on left eyebrow; bullet wound perforating the lungs and bitting pulmonary artery

Valentin Baylon, owner of the fighting cocks, provided that:

11. Jan. 10, 1966, 6AM: He discovered that the door of one of his chicken coops was broken and that 6 of his roosters were
missing. Each coop contained 6 fighting cocks.
12. He reported the incident to the authorities and was summoned to the police station at Mandurriao where he positively
identified a rooster as his.
During the proceedings of the case:
13. Gorriceta, Jaranilla, Suyo and Brillantes were charged with robbery with homicide*. Jaranilla escaped. Charges against
Gorriceta were dropped and he was utilized as a state witness.
14. No judgment as to Jaranilla. He escaped from jail, so he could not have appealed. Hence, only the appeals of Suyo and
Brillantes were entertained. (See Rules of Court – Rule 120 – Sec. 6)

Defendants averred that:

15. 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.
16. 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. WON RTC erred in giving credence to Gorriceta’s declaration that he was driving the truck – NO.
2. Whether the taking of roosters was theft or robbery with homicide – THEFT.

Held:
1. WON RTC erred in giving credence to Gorriceta’s declaration that he was driving the truck – No.
- SC finds that RTC did not err in giving credence to Gorriceta's declaration that he was driving the truck at the time
that Jaranilla shot Jabatan.
- The truck belonged to Gorriceta's sister. He was responsible for its preservation. He had the obligation to return it to
his sister in the same condition when he borrowed it. He was driving it when he saw his co-defendants and when he
allegedly invited them for a paseo. There is no indubitable proof that Jaranilla knows how to drive a truck.
- Alternatively: If Gorriceta was drunk, he would be dozing when Jabatan signalled for them to stop. He could not have
thought of killing Jabatan and would not have been able to shoot accurately. But the fact is that the first shot hit
Jabatan. So, the one who shot him must have been a sober person like Jaranilla.
- Gorriceta does not have a motive for shooting Jabatan as opposed to his co-defendants who were interested in
concealing the fighting cocks.

2. Whether the taking of roosters was theft or robbery with homicide – THEFT.
- Having shown the inapplicability of RPC Arts. 294 and 299 (See notes), SC sought to determine WON said crime was
covered by RPC Art. 302 (See notes) 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:

1) If the entrance has been effected through any opening not intended for entrance or egress.
2) If any wall, roof, floor or outside door or window has been broken.
3) If the entrance has been effected through the use of false keys, picklocks or other similar tools.
4) If any door, wardrobe, chest, or any sealed or closed furniture or receptacle has been broken.
5) 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 (casa habitada o lugar no habitado o edificio). 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. (See notes)
- Therefore, the taking of 6 roosters from their coop should be characterized as theft and not robbery.
- 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.
Disposition:
RTC decision convicting Suyo and Brillantes of robbery with homicide is REVERSED. They are ACQUITTED of homicide
on the ground of reasonable doubt.
- As coprincipals with Jaranilla in the theft of the six fighting cocks, they are (a) each sentenced to an indeterminate penalty of six
(6) months of arresto mayor as minimum to four (4) years and two (2) months of prision correccional as maximum and (b)
ordered to indemnify solidarity the complainant, Valentin Baylon, in the sum of five hundred pesos (P500). Each appellant
should pay one-third of the costs.
- As to the liability of Elias Jaranilla for theft and homicide, with direct assault upon an agent of authority, the trial court should
render a new judgment consistent with this opinion (See Sec. 19, Art. IV, Constitution).

Note/s –
On Issue #2:
- There is no evidence that in taking the 6 roosters from their coop or cages in the yard of Baylon's house violence against
or intimidation of persons was employed. Hence, RPC Art. 294 cannot be invoked.
- It could not fall under RPC Art 299 (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 RPC Art. 301.
On inaccurate translation of RPC Art. 302:
- There is an inaccuracy in the English translation of Art. 302. The controlling Spanish original reads:
ART. 302. Robo en lugar no habitado o edificio particular.—El robo cometido en un lugar no habitado o en un edificio que no sea de los
comprendidos en el parrafo primero del articulo 299, ... . (Tomo 26, Leyes Publicas 479).
- "Lugar no habitado" is erroneously translated as "uninhabited place", a term which may be confounded with the
expression "uninhabited place" in Arts. 295 and 300, which is the translation of despoblado and which is different from
said term. The term lugar no habitado is the antonym of casa habitada (inhabited house) in article 299.
On Baylon’s chicken coop:
- Baylon's coop (tangkal or kulungan) is about 5 yards long, 1 yard wide and 1 yard high. It has wooden stilts and bamboo
strips as bars. The coop barely reaches the shoulder of a person of average height like Baylon. It is divided into six
compartments or cages. A compartment has an area of less than one cubic yard.
- A person cannot be accommodated inside the cage or compartment. It was not intended that a person should go inside
that compartment. The taking was effected by forcibly opening the cage and putting the hands inside it to get the roosters.
On aggravating circumstances:
- Nocturnity and use of a motor vehicle are aggravating
- Against Suyo and Brillantes is the aggravating circumstance of recidivism. They were previously convicted for theft.
- Penalty should be imposed in its maximum period because only aggravating circumstances are present (Art. 64[3], RPC)
- Although recidivists, Suyo and Brillantes are not habitual delinquents. They are entitled to an indeterminate sentence.
With respect to the killing of Patrolman Jabatan:
- Jaranilla’s killing was homicide because it was made on the spur of the moment. The treacherous mode of attack was not
consciously or deliberately adopted by the offender.
- The killing should be characterized as a direct assault (atentado) upon an agent of authority (Art. 148, RPC) complexed
with homicide. The two offenses resulted from a single act.
- No evidence to prove any conspiracy on the part of co-defendants to kill Jabatan. They only conspired to steal the fighting
cocks.
- The theft was consummated when the culprits were able to take possession of the roosters. It is not an indispenable element
of theft that the thief carry, more or less far away, the thing taken by him from its owner.
- Jaranilla heard Gorriceta's testimony that he (Jaranilla) shot Jabatan. Instead of taking the witness stand to refute the
testimony of Gorriceta, Jaranilla escaped from jail. That circumstance is an admission of guilt