People v Puno
Sarmiento jumped out of
GR No. 97471 | Feb 17, 1993
Ponente: Regalado
Plaintiff-appellee: People of the Philippines
Accused-appellants: ISABELO PUNO y GUEVARRA, alias "Beloy," and ENRIQUE
AMURAO y PUNO, alias "Enry"
Nature of Case:
Appeal for the crime of kidnapping for ransom and highway robbery
BRIEF
Mrs. Maria Socorro Mutuc-Sarmiento was fetched by Isabelo Puno,
her husband’s driver, from her bakeshop because her own driver had an
emergency. When they turned right in a corner of Araneta Ave., Enrique
Amurao boarded in the car. Puno announced that he wants to get money
from Mrs. Sarmiento and Amurao threatened her at gun point. She gave
them her bag with 7k, but the two wanted 100k more. The car sped off north
towards the North superhighway. Puno asked her to issue a check and Mrs.
Sarmiento complied.
As they were approaching towards Pampanga, Mrs. Sarmiento
jumped out of the car, injured herself, crossed on the other side, and flagged
down a fish vendor’s van. Upon reaching Balintawak, she reported the
matter to CAPCOM.
DISPOSITIVE
Judgement of RTC is set aside. The Court ruled that the accused-appellants
are guilty of simple robbery.
FACTS
- Mrs. Maria Socorro Mutuc-Sarmiento owns a bakeshop in Araneta Ave.,
Q.C.
Her husband was away in Davao during this prosecution.
- Each of them has a personal driver: 1) accused Isabelo Puno for her
husband,
2) Fred for Mrs. Sarmiento
- Jan 13, 1988, 5pm - Puno arrived at the bakeshop. He told Mrs. Socorro
that
Fred had an emergency, so Puno will temporary take his place
- Mrs. Sarmiento got into the Benz of her husband with Puno as the driver. Puno
stopped the car when they turned right in a corner of Araneta Ave. A young
man, accused Enrique Amurao, boarded in the car beside Puno. Puno
introduced Amurao as his nephew.
- Enrique poke a gun to Mrs. Sarmiento and Puno announced that he wants to
get money from her. She gave them her bag with 7k, but the two wanted 100k
more.
- The car sped off north towards the North superhighway. Puno asked her to
issue a check. She drafted 3 checks in denominations of two for P30 thousand
and one for P40 thousand.
- Enrique ordered her to swallow a pill but she refused.
- As they were approaching towards Pampanga, Mrs.
the car, injured herself, crossed on the other side, and flagged down a fish
vendor’s van.
- Uponn reaching Balintawak, she reported the matter to CAPCOM.
- The two accused were arrested the next day. Enrique was arrested trying to
encash Mrs. Sarmiento’s P40, 000.00 check at PCI Bank, Makati.
Alibis/Dispute/Additional facts
- Puno:
o he freely allowed Mrs. Sarmiento to step out of the car and to get a ride
o they brought the Benz to Pampanga and parked it near a brgy or police
outpost
o then they ate at a restaurant and divided their loot
o he needed the money for the medication of his ulcer
ISSUE/S of the CASE
- Whether or not the appellants committed the felony of kidnapping for ransom,
as charged in the information; or a violation of PD No. 532 (Anti-Piracy and
Anti-Highway Robbery Law of 1974), as contended by the Sol. Gen. and RTC;
or the offense of simple robbery, as claimed by the defense.
ACTIONS of the COURT
QC Regional Trial Court
- The court agrees that the crime is robbery. But the victim was carried
away and extorted for more money.
- The crimes committed is that punishable under P.D. 532 under which where
robbery on the highway is accompanied by extortion the penalty is
reclusion perpetua.
- Sol. Gen. concurs
Supreme Court
On Kidnapping for Ransom
- The motive of the accused has been held to be relevant or essential
to determine the specific nature of the crime
o there is no showing whatsoever that appellants had any motive, other
than the extortion of money from her under the compulsion of threats or
intimidation
o Puno candidly laid the blame for his predicament on his need for funds;
but this actual intent needs an indubitable proof
- Proof: Puno freely allowed Mrs. Sarmiento to get out of the car after they
received their checks. Though she signed the checks at Sto. Domingo exit,
they did not allow her to stay there because they promise to take her home at
Valle Verde, Pasig. However, they realised that they might be apprehended by
the police when they reach Balintawak. So they just let her go along Sta. Rita
Exit.
o incidental deprivation of victim’s liberty does not constitute kidnapping or
illegal detention
o also, it can hardly be assumed that when complainant readily gave
the cash and checks demanded from her at gun point, what she gave
under
1
 the circumstances of this case can be equated with or was in the
concept of ransom in the law of kidnapping
o Ransom - a payment that releases from captivity

On Highway Robbery (PD No. 532)

- Rejects the theory of RTC that the crime constitutes the highway robbery (PD
No. 532)
o highway robbery/brigandage are only acts of robbery by outlaws
indiscriminately against any person or persons on Philippine highways
o these are not acts of robbery committed against only a predetermined
or particular victim
o also, this case is not a highway robbery just because it was committed
on a highway

On Simple Robbery
- Holds that the offense committed by appellants is simple robbery defined in Art
293 and punished under Par 5 of Art 294 of the RPC with prision correccional
in its maximum period to prision mayor in its medium period
o Appellants have indisputably acted in conspiracy

SUPREME COURT RULING

The assailed judgment of the trial court is hereby SET ASIDE and another
one is rendered CONVICTING accused-appellants of robbery as Punished
in
Paragraph 5 of Article 294, in relation to Article 295, of the Revised Penal Code and
IMPOSING on each of them an indeterminate sentence of four (4) years and two (2)
months of prision correccional, as minimum, to ten (10) years of prision mayor, as
maximum, and jointly and severally pay the offended party the amounts of P7,000.00
as actual damages and P20,000.00 as moral damages, with costs.

CONCUR: Narvasa, C.J., Feliciano, Nocon and Campos, Jr.