CRIMINAL LAW TOPIC : DECEIT / DOLO under General and Specific Intent

Title: PEOPLE OF THE PHILLIPINES vs. ISABELO PUNO

Ponente: REGALADO, J. Date: FEBRUARY 17, 1993

Keywords: Kidnapping with Ransom; Robbery; Robbery with Extortion GR No. 97471

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, (plaintiff-appellee) ISABELO PUNO y GUEVARRA and ENRIQUE AMURAO y PUNO, (accused-appellants)

Nature of the case: RESOLUTION

FACTS ISSUE RULING

• May 31, 1989: The accused-appellants
Isabelo Puno together with Enrique Puno
were charged with kidnapping for ransom
and pleaded not guilty during the
arraignment.
• September 26, 1990: they were being
sentenced of being guilty of robbery with
extortion committed on a highway , such
act is punishable under the PD NO. 532
and was sentenced to jail to a term of
1. WON accused-appellants
committed the felony of
kidnapping for ransom
under Article 267 of the
Revised Penal Code .
- NO!
We hold that the offense committed by the appellants is simple
robbery in the present case was committed in Article 293 and
punished under Paragraph 5 of Article 294 of the Revised Penal
Code and not under ARTICLE 267 of the RPC
There is no showing that the appellants had any motive ,
nurtured prior to or at the time they committed the wrongful
acts against complainant, other than the extortion of money
from her under the compulsion of threats or intimidation.
 reclusion perpetua. They were also asked
to pay the actual damages.
• Facts: Mrs. Maria Socorro Sarmiento
owns a bakeshop in QC.
• January 13, 1988 : the accused Isabelo
Puno, (the personal driver of her husband
who was in Davao that time) said that he
would be the one to substitute for the real
driver of Maria Socorro Sarmiento
because of an emergency.
• Maria Socorro was heading back to her
home in Valle Varde Pasig, with Isabelo
Puno as her driver.
• When they were in the corner of Araneta
Avenue , Isabelo Puno stopped the car
which allowed Enrique Puno (his nephew)
to enter. The latter went to where Maria
Socorro seated and pointed the gun at her
and said “ Ma’m, you know, I want to get
money from you”.
With respect to the specific intent of appellants vis-avis the
charge that they had kidnapped the victim, we can rely on the
proverbial rule of ancient respectability that for this crime to
exist, there must be indubitable proof that the actual intent of
the malefactors was to deprive the offended party of her liberty.
That appellants in this case had no intention whatsoever to
kidnap or deprive the complainant of her personal liberty.
For the former offense, it is sufficient that the elements of
unlawful taking, with intent to gain, of personal property through
intimidation of the owner or possessor thereof shall be, as it has
been, proved in the case at bar. Intent to gain (animus lucrandi)
is presumed to be alleged in an information where it is charged
that there was unlawful taking (apoderamiento) and
appropriation by the offender of the things subject of the
robbery.
These foregoing elements are necessarily included in the
information filed against appellants which, as formulated, allege
that they wilfully, unlawfully and feloniously kidnapped and
• In response, Maria Socorro said that she extorted ransom from the complainant. Such allegations, if not
has money amounting to (P7,000) inside expressly but at the very least by necessary implication, clearly
her bag and get it so that they can let her convey that the taking of complainant's money and checks
go. (inaccurately termed as ransom) was unlawful, with intent to
• Furthermore, Isabelo and Enrique gain, and through intimidation. It cannot be logically argued that
demanded that they still want additional such a charge of kidnapping for ransom does not include but
P100,000. Maria Socorro agreed with could negate the presence of any of the elements of robbery
them and asked them to drop her off at a through intimidation of persons.
gas station near Kamagong St. Makati.
• They went towards the North
Superhighway instead. Isabelo demanded
Maria Socorro to issue a check for the said
amount. The latter did comply and issued
the check.
• Isabelo turned the car around towards
Metro Manila. He then changed his mind
and turned the car again towards
Pampanga.
• Maria Socorro according to her, jumped
out of the car , crossed to the other side of
the superhighway and after some vehicles
 ignored her, she was finally able to flag
down a fish vendor van. Her dress had
blood because, according to her, she fell
down on the ground and was injured
when she jumped out of the car. Her dress
was torn too.
• The statements above was contradicting
to the statement of the accused, they
allegedly stopped north bound and they
let Maria Socorro to step out of the car
and waited for the to get a ride. She fell
down when she stubbed her toe while
crossing the highway.

WHEREFORE, the assailed judgement of the trial court is hereby SET ASIDE and another one is rendered CONVICTING accused-appellants Isabelo Puno y Guevarra
and Enrique Amurao y Puno 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 , Maria Del Socorro M. Sarmiento , the amount of P7,000.00 as actual damages and P20,000.00 as moral damages, with
costs. SO ORDERED.

Notes: In relation to the topic of General and Specific Intent:

There is no general intent in the case for the said felony committed by the accused is not committed by dolus, in other words, the accused does not have any malice
intent to injure Maria Del Socorro. But however there is a specific intent coming from the accused because of the fact that they only want to get money from Maria
Socorro for their needs (to cure the ulcer) so as to the specific intent , they have the intent to gain.

REFERENCE:

ARTICLE 267 OF THE REVISED PENAL CODE

Kidnapping and serious illegal detention. — Any private individual who shall kidnap or detain another, or in any other manner deprive him of his liberty, shall
suffer the penalty of reclusion temporal in its maximum period to death:
1. If the kidnapping or detention shall have lasted more than five days.
2. If it shall have been committed simulating public authority.
3. If any serious physical injuries shall have been inflicted upon the person kidnapped or detained, or if threats to kill him shall have been made.
4. If the person kidnapped or detained shall be a minor, female or a public officer.
The penalty shall be reclusion perpetua to death where the kidnapping or detention was committed for the purpose of extorting ransom from the victim or any
other person, even if none of the circumstances above mentioned were present in the commission of the offense."

ARTICLE 293 OF THE REVISED PENAL CODE

Who are guilty of robbery. — Any person who, with intent to gain, shall take any personal property belonging to another, by means of violence or intimidation of
any person, or using force upon anything shall be guilty of robbery.

Section One. — Robbery with violence or intimidation of persons.