People V Adriano GR 205228 CD

Arellano University – School of Law
TITLE OF THE CASE:

G.R. No. 205228 July 15, 2015
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff and Appellee,
vs.
ROLLY ADRIANO y SAMSON, LEAN ADRIANO @ DENDEN, ABBA SANTIAGO y ADRIANO, JOHN DOE
AND PETER DOE, Accused,
ROLLY ADRIANO y SAMSON, Accused-Appellant.
DOCTRINE OF THE CASE:

Article 4 of the Revised Penal Code, pursuant to the doctrine of aberratio ictus, which imposes criminal
liability for the acts committed in violation of law and for all the natural and logical consequences
resulting therefrom.
Stray bullet doctrine.
FACTS:
On 13 March 2007, at around 8:00 a.m., Police Officer 1 Matthew Garabiles (POI Garabiles) and P02
Alejandro Santos (P02 Santos), in civilian clothes, were on their way to Camp Olivas, Pampanga, riding
a motorcycle along Olongapo-Gapan National Road.
While they were at Barangay Malapit San Isidro, Nueva Ecija, a speeding blue Toyota Corolla (Corolla)
with plate no. WHK 635, heading towards the same direction, overtook them and the car in front of
them, a maroon Honda CRV (CRY) with plate no. CTL 957.
When the Corolla reached alongside the CRV, the passenger on the front seat of the Corolla shot the
CRV and caused the CRV to swerve and fall in the canal in the road embankment. Four (4) armed men
then suddenly alighted the Corolla and started shooting at the driver of the CRV, who was later
identified as Cabiedes. During the shooting, a bystander, Bulanan, who was standing near the road
embankment, was hit by a stray bullet. The four armed men hurried back to the Corolla and
immediately left the crime scene. PO 1 Garabiles and P02 Santos followed the Corolla but lost track of
the latter.7
Later, both Cabiedes and Bulanan died from fatal gunshot wounds: Cabiedes was pronounced dead on
arrival (DOA) at the Good Samaritan General Hospital due to three (3) gunshot wounds on the left side
of his chest while Bulanan died on the spot after being shot in the head.
During the investigation, the police learned that the Corolla was registered under the name of Antonio
V. Rivera (Rivera). Upon inquiry, Rivera admitted that he is the owner of the Corolla but clarified that
the Corolla is one of the several cars he owns in his car rental business, which he leased to Adriano.
Later that day, Adriano arrived at Rivera's shop with the Corolla, where he was identified by P02
Santos and PO 1 Garabiles as one of the four assailants who alighted from the passenger's seat beside
the driver of the Corolla and shot Cabiedes. He was immediately arrested and brought to the Provincial
Special Operations Group (PSOG) headquarters in Cabanatuan City.
After trial, the RTC convicted Adriano. The RTC rejected Adriano's defense of alibi on the ground that
it was not supported by clear and convincing evidence.
The Court of Appeals rejected Adriano's attempt to becloud the testimony of the prosecution
witnesses. The Court of Appeals ruled that these trivial differences in fact constitute signs of veracity.
ISSUE:
WoN Adriano should be convicted. (YES)
RULING:
Stray bullets, obviously, kill indiscriminately and often without warning, precluding the unknowing
victim from repelling the attack or defending himself. At the outset, Adriano had no intention to kill
Bulanan, much less, employ any particular means of attack. Logically, Bulanan's death was random and
unintentional and the method used to kill her, as she was killed by a stray a bullet, was, by no means,
Case Digest by:
Lester Fiel Panopio
Juris Doctor - Level 1
Arellano University – School of Law
deliberate. Nonetheless, Adriano is guilty of the death of Bulanan under Article 4 of the Revised Penal
Code,23 pursuant to the doctrine of aberratio ictus, which imposes criminal liability for the acts
committed in violation of law and for all the natural and logical consequences resulting therefrom.
While it may not have been Adriano's intention to shoot Bulanan, this fact will not exculpate him.
Bulanan' s death caused by the bullet fired by Adriano was the natural and direct consequence of
Adriano's felonious deadly assault against Cabiede
Dispositive portion:
WHEREFORE, the appeal is DISMISSED. The assailed Decision of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CR-
HC No. 04028 is AFFIRMED with MODIFICATIONS. Appellant-appellant ROLL Y ADRIANO y SAMSON is
found GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt of MURDER (Criminal Case No. 13160-07) for the killing of
DANILO CABIEDES and is hereby sentenced to suffer the penalty of reclusion perpetua. Accused-
appellant ROLLY ADRIANO y SAMSON is ordered to pay the heirs of DANILO CABIEDES the amount of
Seventy Five Thousand Pesos (₱75,000.00) as civil indemnity, Seventy Five Thousand Pesos
(₱75,000.00) as moral damages, Thirty Thousand Pesos (₱30,000.00) as exemplary damages, and Two
Hundred Thirty Two Thousand Four Hundred Eighty Two Pesos {₱232,482.00) as actual damages.
Accused-appellant ROLLY ADRIANO y SAMSON is also found guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the
crime of MURDER (Criminal Case No. 13159-07) for the killing of OFELIA BULANAN and is hereby
sentenced to suffer the penalty of reclusion perpetua. Accused-appellant ROLLY ADRIANO y SAMSON
is ordered to pay the heirs of OFELIA BULANAN in the amount of the amount of Seventy Five Thousand
Pesos (₱75,000.00) as civil indemnity, Seventy Five Thousand Pesos (₱75,000.00) as moral damages,
Thirty Thousand Pesos (₱30,000.00) as exemplary damages, and Twenty Five Thousand Pesos
(₱25,000.00) as temperate damages in lieu of actual damages.
All monetary awards shall earn interest at the rate of 6o/o per annum from the date of finality until
fully paid.

SO ORDERED.
Case Digest by:

Lester Fiel Panopio
Juris Doctor - Level 1

People V Adriano GR 205228 CD

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

People V Adriano GR 205228 CD

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

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 Adriano GR 205228 CD

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Arellano University – School of Law

TITLE OF THE CASE:

DOCTRINE OF THE CASE:

Stray bullet doctrine.

Case Digest by:

You might also like