Source: http://lawlibrary.chanrobles.com/index.php?option=com_content&amp;view=article&amp;id=40444:g-r-nos-115985-86-august-31,-2000-people-of-the-phil-v-allan-jarandilla&amp;catid=1396&amp;Itemid=566
Timestamp: 2019-04-18 18:34:06+00:00

Document:
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. ALLAN JARANDILLA, Accused-Appellant.
"That on or about February 10, 1991, in the Municipality of Barotac Viejo, Province of Iloilo, Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named accused, armed with a cal. .38 revolver (Squire Bingham) taking advantage of the nighttime, with intent to kill and with trachery (sic) and evident premeditation, did then and there wilfully, unlawfully and feloniously attack, assault and shoot one Bonifacio Jalandoni inflicting upon the latter gunshot wounds on the vital parts of his body, thereby performing all the acts of execution which would have caused the death of Bonifacio Jalandoni as a consequence but which, nevertheless, did not produce it by reason of causes independent of the will of the accused, that is, by the timely and able medical attendance rendered to the said Bonifacio Jalandoni which prevented his death.
"That on or about February 10, 1991, in the Municipality of Btac. Viejo, Province of Iloilo, Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named accused, armed with a cal. .38 revolver (Squire Bingham) taking advantage of the nighttime, with intent to kill and with treachery and evident premeditation, did then and there wilfully, unlawfully and feloniously attack, assault and shoot one Nilo Prieto inflicting upon the latter gunshot wounds on the vital parts of his body, thereby performing all the acts of execution which would have caused the death of Nilo Prieto as a consequence but which, nevertheless, did not produce it by reason of causes independent of the will of the accused, that is, by the timely and able medical attendance rendered to the said Nilo Prieto which prevented his death.
"From the foregoing, it has been established by evidence for the prosecution, as well as that of the defense, that in the evening of February 10, 1991, while a jeep driven by Nilo Prieto, with Peter Paul Aldeguer, Bonifacio Jalandoni and accused herein Allan Jarandilla, as passengers, was negotiating an uphill portion of the highway, from Ajuy Iloilo, going towards Barotac Viejo, Iloilo, several shots were fired from a gun, causing injuries to Peter Paul Aldeguer, which caused his untimely death, a wound at the nape of Nilo Prieto, and wounds on the chest and left wrist, of Bonifacio Jalandoni, which could have caused their deaths, were it not for timely medical attendance. The only passenger of the jeep, who was not injured, is, Accused herein, Allan Jarandilla. As a result of said incident, the money of Peter Paul Aldeguer, which was about P20,000.00 that he won at the cockfight, at Ajuy Iloilo was missing.
Nilo Prieto and Bonifacio Jalandoni, testified, under oath, and pinpointed, to the accused herein, Allan Jarandilla, as their assaillant (sic).
Although Nilo Prieto, before, and at the time, of the incident in question, did not know the name of that companion of Bonifacio Jalandoni who rode in his jeep in the evening of February 10, 1991, the said person was introduced to him, and to Peter Paul Aldeguer, as a policeman from Barotac Viejo, Iloilo.
Bonifacio Jalandoni informed the court, that he has known Allan Jarandilla, for a long time, because their respective wives where even together in selling textiles.
The contention of accused Allan Jarandilla, that he did not shoot the aforenamed victims and took the P20,000.00 from the pocket of Peter Paul Aldeguer, is negated by the testimonies of the victims who were able to live to ‘tell the tale’.
The actuation of the accused Allan Jarandilla, at the time of the incident, in question, tends to show that he intended to kill Nilo Prieto and Bonifacio Jalandoni, after he has already killed and robbed Peter Paul Aldeguer, in order to eliminate the witnesses to his criminal acts.
The allegations of accused Allan Jarandilla that he could not have possibly shot his victims, because he did not have any firearm at that time of the incident, as he has turned over his .38 caliber service revolver to PO3 Agsamosam, before he was transferred to 321st PC Coy, Sara, Iloilo, is not convincing to this court, because he was earlier seen, by Bonifacio Jalandoni and Nilo Prieto, as having a revolver tucked at his waist. Moreover, it is into farfetched, that even after Allan Jarandilla has turned over his .38 caliber service revolver to PO3 Agsamosam at Barotac Viejo, Iloilo, as a policeman, he could have easily secured another firearm, from other sources.
The allegations of Allan Jarandilla that he did not take the money from Peter Paul Aldeguer is likewise considered by the Court as not believable. The record will show that the accused Allan Jarandilla, went into hiding before he placed himself under the protective custody of the National Bureau of Investigation (NBI) on February 18, 1991 (Exh. 14’) so that it could have been very easy for him to hide the "loot", as well as the gun, which he used in shooting at the aforenamed victims.
3)	In Criminal Case No. 36071, Guilty, beyond reasonable doubt, of the crime of Robbery with Homicide, with Peter Paul Aldeguer, as his victim, and hereby Sentences him with reclusion perpetua, considering that at the time of the commission of the offense charged, the capital penalty, of death, has been abolished by the "Cory" Constitution, and not yet re-imposed by law. The afore-named accused is ordered to indemnify the heirs of the deceased, Peter Paul Aldeguer, in the amounts of P75,000,00, as actual damages, P500,000,00, as indemnity for his life; P500,000,00, as moral damages and P50,000,00, as attorney’s fees, and to pay the costs.
Accused, ALLAN JARANDILLA, shall be credited, in full, of the period during which he was detained, in connection with all the above-entitled cases.
The .38 caliber Squire & Bingham revolver, with Serial No. 659991, is hereby ordered to be returned to the PNP of Barotac Viejo, Iloilo, upon the signing by its representative of the corresponding receipt, therefor.
Appellant contends that his motive for committing the crimes was not established. He alleges that the presence of money on the body of Peter Paul Aldeguer, and the non-taking of any valuables from Nilo Prieto and Bonifacio Jalandoni rules out robbery. He also contends that he couldn’t have shot any of the victims, as he had turned over his service revolver much earlier than the date of the incident, and the NBI ballistics report on said revolver showed that the slugs taken from Aldeguer and Prieto’s jeep were not fired therefrom. It was a certain "Onik," appellant alleges, who later boarded the jeep and shot the victims. He also claims that it is not true that there was no eyewitness to corroborate his testimony and his claim that it A as this "Onik" who was responsible for the shootings.
For the State, the Office of the Solicitor General counters by invoking the settled rule that the prosecution need not prove motive on the part of appellant, as the latter had been positively identified as the author of the crime by Nilo Prieto and Bonifacio Jalandoni. The presence of money on the body of Peter Paul Aldeguer also does not negate the imputation of robbery, as prior to the shooting, Aldeguer was carrying more money than was found on his cadaver. The fact that appellant turned over his service firearm also does not preclude his chances of obtaining another one, which he used in the commission of the crimes charged. Lastly, the Solicitor General asserts that appellant’s imputation of the crime to one "Onik" is incredible, as there was no proof of the involvement, much less the existence, of such person on the night of the incident.
Based on the foregoing arguments of appellant and of the Solicitor General, we find that the basic issues here involve the credibility of witnesses, and the sufficiency of the evidence presented by the prosecution.
These assertions by appellant are not corroborated by any other witness. Jalandoni himself denies having a nephew by the name of "Unik" or "Onik." 17 None of the principal witnesses testified that there was a fifth passenger on board the jeep that they were riding that night, aside from Prieto, Jalandoni, Aldeguer and appellant. While defense witness Maria Bautista testified that she saw another person board the jeep in Culasi, she also stated that she saw appellant and two other persons inside the jeep at the time. 18 There was no fifth rider in the jeep, contrary to appellant’s averment.
Lastly, appellant reasons that he could not have shot the victims because he had returned his service revolver prior to the incident, and that the ballistics test showed that the slugs taken from Aldeguer’s cadaver and Prieto’s jeep were not fired from said revolver. However, the prosecution witnesses never stated that the .38 caliber revolver which they saw tucked in appellant’s waist on the night of the incident was his service revolver. They merely observed that there was such a weapon on appellant’s person. 24 Thus, the previous return of appellant’s service firearm to the PNP of Iloilo prior to the incident would not serve to exonerate him from culpability.
Both Prieto and Jalandoni testified that the shootings were carried out in a sudden and unexpected manner, without warning, with neither Prieto, Jalandoni nor the deceased Aldeguer expecting the attack. 29 Hence, the shooting of Prieto, Jalandoni and Aldeguer was attended by treachery. The attack being sudden and unexpected, they had no chance to defend themselves, particularly Prieto and Aldeguer, who were shot from behind as they sat at the front seat of the jeep. There was no warning, not even a declaration of a "holdup", as the gunman fired successive shots at his victims. Thus, the unexpected and sudden attack on the victims from behind rendered them unable and unprepared to defend themselves. Such suddenness was meant to ensure the safety of the gunman as well as the success of the attack. This clearly constituted alevosia. 30 This qualified the crimes committed by appellant to murder, although frustrated and attempted only insofar as Prieto and Jalandoni, respectively, were concerned. As for the aggravating circumstances of nighttime and evident premeditation alleged in the informations filed against appellant, we find no sufficient proof of the existence of these modifying circumstances.
Concerning Bonifacio Jalandoni’s injuries, appellant must be held liable for attempted murder only, for as pointed out by the examining physician, "he may or may not (have) succumb(ed)" to the gunshot wounds, indicating that said wounds alone could not have necessarily caused the death of Jalandoni. 32 A felony is attempted when the offender commences the commission of a felony directly by overt acts, and does not perform all the acts of execution which should produce the felony by reason of some cause or accident other than his own spontaneous desistance, 33 such as the absence of lethal or mortal wounds.
In the case at bar, Nilo Prieto testified that he saw appellant search through the pockets of Peter Paul Aldeguer as he lay unconscious. Thereafter, police investigators found the sum of around P3,000.00 on Aldeguer’s body, a far cry from the P23,000.00 he had earlier won. From these established circumstances, there can be no other conclusion than that appellant robbed Aldeguer, who was shot to death on the occasion of the robbery.
As to the damages awarded, we find that the trial court erred in awarding the heirs of Peter Paul Aldeguer the amounts of P500,000.00 as death indemnity, P500,000.00 as moral damages, and P50,000.00 as attorney’s fees. Pursuant to current jurisprudence, these amounts awarded by the trial court must be lowered. The trial court also erred in the imposition of prison terms for appellant’s crimes against Nilo Prieto and Bonifacio Jalandoni. These must be adjusted accordingly, in line with the law on penalties.
Bellosillo, Mendoza, Buena and De Leon, Jr., JJ., concur.
7.	Id.,. at 138-147; TSN, January 19, 1993, pp. 1-6.
11.	People v. Villamor, 284 SCRA 184,195 (1998).
12.	People v. Ballesteros, 285 SCRA 438,445 (1998).
13.	TSN, September 30, 1991, pp. 15-19; TSN, October 1, 1991, pp. 20-24.
14.	TSN, October 1, 1991, pp. 14, 27, 30, 38.
15.	People v. Nava, 306 SCRA 15, 22 (1999).
16.	TSN, February 10, 1992, pp. 11 - 18.
17.	TSN, November 24, 1992, p. 2.
18.	TSN, January 19, 1993, pp. 4-6.
19.	People v. Maglente, 306 SCRA 546, 575 (1999).
20.	People v. Guevarra, 306 SCRA 111, 125 (1999).
21.	People v. Andaya, 306 SCRA 202, 215 (1999).
22.	TSN, September 30, 1991, pp. 22-23; TSN, October 1, 1991, p. 20.
24.	Id. at 16; TSN, October 1, 1991, pp. 21-22.
26.	Id. at 5, 9-10.
27.	TSN, October 1, 1991, p. 4.
29.	TSN, September 30, 1991, p. 16; TSN, October 1, 1991, p. 21.
30.	People v. Borreros, 306 SCRA 680, 692 (1999).
31.	People v. De la Cruz, 291 SCRA 164, 186 (1998).
32.	TSN, October 1, 1991, p. 6.
33.	Article 6, Revised Penal Code.
34.	People of the Philippines v. Elmer Salas y David, GR. No. 115192, March 7, 2000, pp. 10-11.

References: v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v.