People v. Jarandilla
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: On the evening of February 10, 1991, in Barotac Viejo, Iloilo, Nilo Prieto drove a jeepney with passengers Peter Paul Aldeguer, Bonifacio Jalandoni, and accused Allan Jarandilla (introduced as a policeman) from Ajuy, Iloilo, after Aldeguer won approximately P23,000 from cockfights. While ascending an uphill highway portion, Jarandilla suddenly fired multiple shots from a .38 caliber revolver tucked in his waist, first killing Aldeguer (shot from behind, multiple vital wounds), then wounding Prieto in the nape (from behind) and Jalandoni in the chest and left wrist. Prieto and Jalandoni positively identified Jarandilla as the lone gunman and robber, testifying he held Aldeguer by the collar while rifling his pockets; P20,000 went missing (only P3,000 found bloodied on body). Jarandilla was the only uninjured passenger, fled post-incident, surrendered to NBI on February 18 under protective custody, blaming a mysterious 'Onik/Unik' who allegedly boarded in Culasi. Medical exams confirmed shots from behind (2-3 feet for Jalandoni, nape for Prieto), with Prieto's wound potentially fatal sans aid; Jalandoni's 'may or may not succumb.' Procedural History: Jarandilla charged in RTC Iloilo Branch 28 with two frustrated murders (Cases 36069-70) and robbery with homicide (Case 36071); pleaded not guilty. Prosecution: victims Prieto/Jalandoni, Drs. Uy/Jarbadan/Mallo (wounds, autopsy), Jeane Aldeguer (damages). Defense: Jarandilla (denial, blames Onik), PNP officers (firearm turnover Oct 1990), NBI ballistics (slugs not from service gun), chemist (powder on Jalandoni), others (no fifth passenger). RTC convicted March 28, 1994: frustrated murder x2 (4y2m-10y each + indemnity), robbery w/ homicide (reclusion perpetua + damages); Jarandilla appealed. The Petition: Appellant argued: no motive; money on Aldeguer negates robbery; no firearm (service gun turned over, ballistics mismatch); Onik boarded and shot; reasonable doubt from inconsistencies. OSG countered: motive unnecessary (positive ID by victims); partial money loss suffices robbery (saw pocket search); easy firearm access; no proof of Onik; treachery present.
Issue(s)
Whether the positive identification by victim-eyewitnesses suffices despite lack of motive and alleged third-party culpability. Whether the crimes against Prieto are frustrated murder and robbery with homicide, considering wound lethality, treachery, and animus lucrandi; and whether the crime against Jalandoni is attempted murder, considering wound lethality and treachery. Whether ballistics and partial money recovery create reasonable doubt.
Ruling
The Supreme Court modified the RTC decision: (1) Case 36069 - Attempted Murder vs. Jalandoni (prision correccional med - prision mayor med + P20,000 indemnity); (2) Case 36070 - Frustrated Murder vs. Prieto (prision mayor med - reclusion temporal med + P11,700 indemnity); (3) Case 36071 - Robbery with Homicide vs. Aldeguer (reclusion perpetua + P75,000 actual, P50,000 death indemnity, P50,000 moral, P25,000 attys fees).
Ratio Decidendi
On Issue 1 (Credibility and Identity): The Court held that motive is immaterial when accused is positively identified by credible eyewitnesses, per People v. Villamor (284 SCRA 184) and People v. Ballesteros (285 SCRA 438), as Prieto and Jalandoni (victims, no ill-motive; Jalandoni called appellant barrio-mate) categorically pointed to Jarandilla shooting from behind without warning. Appellant's denial and uncorroborated tale of 'Onik/Unik' (denied by Jalandoni, no other witness to fifth passenger despite Bautista seeing only four) is self-serving and incredible, warranting rejection under People v. Maglente (306 SCRA 546). Eyewitnesses knew appellant (as policeman, long-time acquaintance via wives' business), saw revolver pre-shooting; post-flight to NBI without naming Onik undermines claim. Presumption of truthfulness attaches absent improper motive (People v. Nava, 306 SCRA 15). Thus, identification prevails, creating no reasonable doubt. On Issue 2 (Stages of Felonies and Robbery w/ Homicide): Frustrated murder vs. Prieto upheld: nape wound from behind fatal sans timely aid (Dr. Uy; RPC Art. 6, all acts performed but non-consummation independent of will, People v. De la Cruz, 291 SCRA 164). Attempted murder vs. Jalandoni: chest/wrist wounds 'may or may not succumb' (Dr. Jarbadan), not all acts executed (RPC Art. 6). Treachery (RPC Art. 14[16]) qualifies both: sudden, unexpected shots from behind, no defense chance, no holdup warning (People v. Borreros, 306 SCRA 680). Robbery w/ homicide (RPC Art. 294): Prieto saw pocket search post-shooting; P23,000 won vs. P3,000 found proves animus lucrandi, violence, ownership, homicide on occasion (People v. Salas, G.R. 115192). Partial recovery irrelevant; special complex crime where homicide incidental to robbery. On Issue 3 (Firearm/Ballistics and Money): Service gun turnover (Oct 1990) and ballistics mismatch irrelevant, as witnesses saw 'a' .38 revolver on appellant, not specified as service arm; policemen easily procure others. Money on body does not negate robbery given eyewitness search and amount discrepancy. No nighttime/premeditation proven.
Main Doctrine
The Court reiterates that frustrated murder requires performance of all acts of execution to cause death but non-consummation due to causes independent of accused's will, such as timely medical intervention, as shown by medical testimony that victim 'would have died' without aid. In contrast, attempted murder exists when not all acts of execution are performed, evidenced by physician's opinion that victim 'may or may not succumb,' indicating non-lethal wounds. Robbery with homicide, a special complex crime, is committed when homicide occurs on the occasion of robbery, proven by eyewitness account of accused searching victim's pockets post-shooting and discrepancy in cash amounts, despite partial recovery. Treachery (alevosia) qualifies the killings where attack is sudden, unexpected, from behind, ensuring commission without victim risk, even absent nighttime or premeditation. Positive identification by credible victim-eyewitnesses, without improper motive, prevails over accused's bare denial and uncorroborated claim implicating non-existent third party, rendering motive proof unnecessary.