Professional Documents
Culture Documents
had any motive other than the extortion of money from complainant
under the compulsion of threats or intimidation.·ln the case at bar,
there is no showing whatsoever that 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
VOL. 219, FEBRUARY 17, 1993 85 under the compulsion of threats or intimidation. This much is
admitted by both appellants, without any other esoteric
People vs. Puno
qualification or dubious justification.
*
G.R. No. 97471. February 17, 1993. Same; Same; Same; Same; For kidnapping to exist, there must
be indubitable proof that the actual intent of the malefactors was to
deprive the offended party of her liberty.·With respect to the
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs.
specific intent of appellants vis-a-vis the charge that they had
ISABELO PUNO y GUEVARRA, alias "Beloy," and
kidnapped the victim, we can rely on the proverbial rule of ancient
ENRIQUE AMURAO y PUNO, alias "Enry," accused-
respectability that for this crime to exist, there must be indubitable
appellants.
proof that the actual intent of the malefactors was to deprive the
offended party of her liberty, and not where such restraint of her
Criminal Law; Kidnapping for Ransom; Presidential Decree No. freedom of action was merely an incident in the commission of
532; Evidence; In the determination of the crime for which the another offense primarily intended by the offenders.
accused should be held liable in those instances where his acts Same; Same; Same; Same; While the court holds that the crime
partakes of the nature of variant offenses, his motive and specific committed is robbery as defined in Article 293 of the Code, the theory
intent in perpetrating the acts complained of are invaluable aids in of the trial court that the same constitutes the highway robbery
arriving at a correct appreciation and accurate conclusion thereon. contemplated in and punished by Presidential Decree No. 532 is
·Prefatorily, it is worth recalling an accepted tenet in criminal law rejected; Ransom defined.·Neither can we consider the amounts
that in the determination of the crime for which the accused should given to appellants as equivalent to or in the nature of ransom,
be held liable in those instances where his acts partakes of the considering the immediacy of their obtention thereof from the
nature complainant personally. Ransom, in municipal criminal law, is the
money, price or consideration paid or demanded for redemption of a
___________________ captured person or persons, a payment that releases from captivity.
It can hardly be assumed that when complainant readily gave the
11 Original Records, p. 29. cash and checks demanded from her at gunpoint, what she gave
* SECOND DIVISION. under the circumstances of this case can be equated with or was in
the concept of ransom in the law of kidnapping. There were merely
amounts involuntarily surrendered by the victim upon the occasion
86 of a robbery or of which she was summarily divested by appellants.
Accordingly, while we hold that the crime committed is robbery as
defined in Article 293 of the Code, we, however, reject the theory of
the trial
86 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED
87
People vs. Puno
of variant offenses, and the same holds true with regard to the
modifying or qualifying circumstances thereof, his motive and VOL. 219, FEBRUARY 17, 1993 87
specific intent in perpetrating the acts complained of are invaluable People vs. Puno
aids in arriving at a correct appreciation and accurate conclusion
thereon.
court that the same constitutes the highway robbery contemplated
in and punished by Presidential Decree No. 532. punishes as highway robbery or brigandage only acts of robbery
Same; Same; Same; Presidential Decree No. 532 is not a perpetrated by outlaws indiscriminately against any person or
modification of Article 267 of the Revised Penal Code on kidnapping persons on Philippine highways as defined therein and not acts of
and serious illegal detention but of Articles 306 and 307 on robbery committed against only a predetermined or particular
brigandage.·Contrary to the postulation of the Solicitor General, victim.·Further, that Presidential Decree No. 532 punishes as
Presidential Decree No. 532 is not a modification of Article 267 of highway robbery or brigandage only acts of robbery perpetrated by
the Revised Penal Code on kidnapping and serious illegal detention, outlaws indiscriminately against any person or persons on
but of Articles 306 and 307 on brigandage. This is evident from the Philippine highways as defined therein, and not acts of robbery
fact that the relevant portion thereof which treats of "highway committed against only a predetermined or particular victim, is
robbery" invariably uses this term in the alternative and evident from the preambular clauses thereof.
synonymously with brigandage, that is, as "highway Same; Same; Same; Same; The single act of robbery conceived
robbery/brigandage." This is but in line with our previous ruling, and committed by appellants in this case does not constitute
and which still holds sway in criminal law, that highway robbers highway robbery or brigandage.·We do not entertain any doubt,
(ladrones) and brigands are synonymous. therefore, that the coincidental fact that the robbery in the present
case was committed inside a car which, in the natural course of
Same; Same; Same; Brigandage; Salient distinction between
things, was casually operating on a highway, is not within the
brigandage and robbery.·The following salient distinctions
situation envisaged by Section 2(e) of the decree in its definition of
between brigandage and robbery are succinctly explained in a
terms. Besides, that particular provision precisely defines "highway
treatise on the subject and are of continuing validity: "The main
robbery/brigandage" and, as we have amply demonstrated, the
object of the Brigandage Law is to prevent the formation of bands of
single act of robbery conceived and committed by appellants in this
robbers. The heart of the offense consists in the formation of a band
case does not constitute highway robbery or brigandage
by more than three armed persons for the purpose indicated in art.
306. Such formation is sufficient to constitute a violation ,of art. Same; Same; Same; Same; The offense committed by appellants
306. It would not be necessary to show, in a prosecution under it, is simple robbery defined in Article 293 and punished under
that a member or members of the band actually committed robbery Paragraph 5 of Article 294 of the Revised Penal Code with prision
or kidnapping or any other purpose attainable by violent means. correccional in its maximum period to prision mayor in its medium
The crime is proven when the organization and purpose of the band period.·Accordingly, we hold that the offense committed by
are shown to be such as are contemplated by art. 306. On the other appellants is simple robbery defined in Article 293 and punished
hand, if robbery is committed by a band, whose members were not under Paragraph 5 of Article 294 of the Revised Penal Code with
primarily organized for the purpose of committing robbery or prision correccional in its maximum period to prision mayor in its
kidnapping, etc., the crime would not be brigandage, but only medium period.
robbery. Simply because robbery was committed by a band of more
Same; Same; Same; Criminal Procedure; Court holds that there
than three armed persons, it would not follow that it was committed
is no procedural obstacle to the conviction of appellants of the crime
by a band of brigands. In the Spanish text of art. 306, it is required
of simple robbery upon an information charging them with
that the band 'sala a los campos para dedicarse a robar.'"
kidnapping for ransom.·We further hold that there is no
Same; Same; Same; Same; Same; The purpose of brigandage is, procedural obstacle to the conviction of appellants of the crime of
inter alia, indiscriminate highway robbery.·ln fine, the purpose of simple robbery upon an information charging them with kidnapping
brigandage is, inter alia, indiscriminate highway robbery. If the for ransom, since the former offense which has been proved is
purpose is only a particular robbery, the crime is only robbery, or . necessarily included in the latter offense with which they are
robbery in band if there are at least four armed participants. charged. For the former offense, it is sufficient that the elements of
unlawful taking, with intent to gain, of personal property through
88 intimidation of the owner or possessor
89
88 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED
and appropriation by the offender of the things subject of the On a plea of not guilty when arraigned, appellants went to
robbery. trial which ultimately resulted in a judgment promulgated
on September 26, 1990 finding them guilty of robbery with
APPEAL from the judgment of the Regional Trial Court of extortion committed on a highway, punishable under
Quezon City, Branch 103. Salazar, J. Presidential Decree No. 532, with this disposition in the
The facts are stated in the opinion of the Court. fallo thereof:
The Solicitor General for plaintiff-appellee.
ACCORDINGLY, judgment is hereby rendered finding the accused
Edward C. Castañeda for accused-appellants.
ISABELO PUNO and ENRIQUE AMURAO GUILTY as principals
REGALADO, J.: of robbery with extortion committed on a highway and, in
accordance with P.D. 532, they are both sentenced to a jail term of
The primal issue for resolution in this case is whether reclusion perpetua.
accused-appellants committed the felony of kidnapping for "The two accused are likewise ordered to pay jointly and
ransom under Article 267 of the Revised Penal Code, as severally the offended private victim Ma. Socorro M. Sarmiento the
charged in the information; or a violation of Presidential sum of P7.000.00 as actual damages and P3.000.00 as temperate
3
Decree No. 532 (Anti-Piracy and Anti-Highway Robbery damages."
Law of 1974), as contended by the Solicitor General and
found by the trial court; or the offense of simple robbery Before us now in this appeal, appellants contend that the
punished by Paragraph 5, Article 294 of the Revised Penal court a quo erred (1) in convicting them under Presidential
Code, as claimed by the defense. Decree No. 532 since they were not expressly charged with
In an information dated and filed on May 31, 1989 in the a crime therein; (2) in applying Sections 4 and 5, Rule 120
Regional Trial Court of Quezon City, Branch 103, as of the Rules of Court since the charge under said
Criminal Case No. Q-57404 thereof, appellants were presidential decree is not the offense proved and cannot
charged with kidnapping for ransom allegedly committed rightly be used as the offense proved
4
which is necessarily
in the following manner: included in the offense charged.
For the material antecedents of this case, we quote with
"That on or about the 13th day of January, 1988 in Quezon City, approval the 5following counter-statement of facts in the
Philippines and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the People's brief which adopted the established findings of
said accused, being then private individuals, conspiring together, the court a quo, documenting the same with page
confederating with and mutually helping each other, did, then and references to the transcripts of the proceedings, and which
there, wilfully, unlawfully and feloniously kidnap and carry away
**
we note are without any substantial divergence in the
one MARIA DEL SOCORRO SARMIENTO y MUTUC for the version proffered by the defense.
purpose of extorting ransom, to the damage and prejudice of the
said offended party in such amount as may be awarded to her under "This is a prosecution for kidnapping for ransom allegedly done on
the provisions January 13, 1988 by the two accused (tsn, Jan. 8, 1990, p. 7).
_______________
________________
but made the clarification that her baptismal name is "Maria del Socorro
2 Ibid., 72.
17 Keith vs. State, 120 Fla. 847, 163 So. 136; People vs. Akiran, et al,
95
18 SCRA 239, 246 (1966).
18 Original Record, 136.
VOL. 219, FEBRUARY 17, 1993 95
96
People vs. Puno
Neither can we consider the amounts given to appellants as 96 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED
equivalent to or in the nature of ransom, considering the People vs. Puno
immediacy of their obtention thereof from the complainant
personally. Ransom, in municipal criminal law, is the Penal Code, particularly Article 267 which are inconsistent
19
money, price or consideration paid or demanded for with it." Such opinion and complementary submission
redemption of a captured person
17
or persons, a payment consequently necessitate an evaluation of the correct
that releases from captivity. It can hardly be assumed interplay between and the legal effects of Presidential
that when complainant readily gave the cash and checks Decree No. 532 on the pertinent provisions of the Revised
demanded from her at gunpoint, what she gave under the Penal Code, on which matter we are not aware that any
circumstances of this case can be equated with or was in definitive pronouncement has as yet been made.
the concept of ransom in the law of kidnapping. There were Contrary to the postulation of the Solicitor General,
merely amounts involuntarily surrendered by the victim Presidential Decree No. 532 is not a modification of Article
upon the occasion of a robbery or of which she was 267 of the Revised Penal Code on kidnapping and serious
summarily divested by appellants. Accordingly, while we illegal detention, but of Articles 306 and 307 on
hold that the crime committed is robbery as defined in brigandage. This is evident from the fact that the relevant
Article 293 of the Code, we, however, reject the theory of portion thereof which treats of "highway robbery"
the trial court that the same constitutes the highway invariably uses this term in the alternative and
robbery contemplated in and punished by Presidential synonymously with brigandage, that is, as "highway
Decree No. 532. robbery/brigandage." This is but in line with our previous
The lower court, in support of its theory, offers this ruling, and which still holds sway in criminal law, that
ratiocination: highway robbers (ladrones) and brigands are
20
"The court agrees that the crime is robbery. But it is also clear from synonymous.
the allegation in the information that the victim was carried away Harking back to the origin of our law on brigandage
and extorted for more money. The accused admitted that the (bandolerismo) in order to put our discussion thereon in the
proper context and perspective, we find that a band of Presidential Decree No. 532 for the objectives announced
brigands, also known as highwaymen or freebooters, is therein, could not have been unaware of that distinction
more than a gang of ordinary robbers. Jurisprudence on the and is presumed to have adopted the same, there being no
matter reveals that during the early part of the American indication to the contrary. This conclusion is buttressed by
occupation of our country, roving bands were organized for the rule on contemporaneous construction, since it is one
robbery and pillage and since the then existing law against drawn from the time when and the circumstances under
robbery was inadequate to cope with such21moving bands of which the decree to be construed originated.
outlaws, the Brigandage Law was passed. Contemporaneous exposition
24
or construction is the best and
The following salient distinctions between brigandage strongest in the law.
and robbery are succinctly explained in a treatise on the Further, that Presidential Decree No. 532 punishes as
subject and are of continuing validity: highway robbery or brigandage only acts of robbery
perpetrated by outlaws indiscriminately against any
"The main object of the Brigandage Law is to prevent the formation person or persons on Philippine highways as defined
of bands of robbers. The heart of the offense consists in the therein, and not acts of robbery committed against only a
formation of a band by more than three armed persons for the predetermined or particular victim, is evident from the
purpose indicated in art. 306. Such formation is sufficient to consti preambular clauses thereof, to wit:
_______________ ______________
19 Rollo, p. 79. 22 Aquino, R.C., The Revised Penal Code, Volume Three, 1989 ed., p.
20 U.S. vs. Ibañez, 19 Phil. 463 (1911), Art. 306 of the Code also 174, citing U.S. vs. Decusin, 2 Phil. 536 (1903) and U.S. vs. Maaño, 2
specifically refers to them as "highway robbers or brigands." Phil. 718 (1903).
21 U.S. vs. Carlos, 15 Phil. 47 (1910). 23 U.S. vs. Feliciano, 3 Phil. 422 (1904).
24 Contemporanea expositio est optima et fortissima in lege (2 Inst. 11;
97
Black's Law Dictionary, Fourth Edition, 390).
100
VOL. 219, FEBRUARY 17, 1993 99
People vs. Puno
100 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED
anywhere on the highway and whosoever they may People vs. Puno
potentially be, is the same as the concept of brigandage
which is maintained in Presidential Decree No. 532, in the Decree No. 532, thus rendering nugatory the27 categorical
same manner as it was under its aforementioned precursor provisions of the Anti-Carnapping Act of 1972? And, if the
in the Code and, for that matter, under the old Brigandage scenario is one where the subject matter of the unlawful
25
Law. asportation is large cattle which are incidentally being
Erroneous advertence is nevertheless made by the court herded along and traversing the same highway and are
below to the fact that the crime of robbery committed by impulsively set upon by the accused, should we apply
appellants should be covered by the said amendatory Presidential Decree No. 532 and completely disregard the
decree just because it was committed on a highway. Aside explicit
28
prescriptions in the AntiCattle Rustling Law of
from what has already been stressed regarding the absence 1974?
of the requisite elements which thereby necessarily puts We do not entertain any doubt, therefore, that the
the offense charged outside the purview and intendment of coincidental fact that the robbery in the present case was
that presidential issuance, it would be absurd to adopt a committed inside a car which, in the natural course of
literal interpretation that any unlawful taking of property things, was casually operating on a highway, is not within
committed on our highways would be covered thereby. It is the situation envisaged by Section 2(e) of the decree in its
definition of terms. Besides, that particular provision These foregoing elements are necessarily included in the
precisely define "highway robbery/ brigandage" and, as we information filed against appellants which, as formulated,
have amply demonstrated, the single act of robbery allege that they willfully, unlawfully and feloniously
conceived and committed by appellants in this case does kidnapped and extorted ransom from the complainant.
not constitute highway robbery or brigandage. Such allegations, if not expressly but at the very least by
Accordingly, we hold that the offense committed by necessary implication, clearly convey that the taking of
appellants is simple robbery defined in Article 293 and complainant's money and checks (inaccurately termed as
punished under Paragraph 5 of Article 294 of the Revised ransom) was unlawful, with intent to gain, and through
Penal Code with prision correccional in its maximum intimidation. It cannot be logically argued that such a
period to prision mayor in its medium period. Appellants charge of kidnapping for ransom does not include but could
have indisputably acted in conspiracy as shown by their negate the presence of any of32 the elements of robbery
concerted acts evidentiary of a unity of thought and through intimidation of persons.
community of purpose. In the determination of their WHEREFORE, the assailed judgment of the trial court
respective
29
liabilities, the aggravating circumstances of is hereby SET ASIDE and another one is rendered
craft shall be appreciated against both appellants and CONVICTING accused-appellants Isabelo Puno y
that of abuse of confidence shall be further applied against Guevarra and Enrique Amurao y Puno of robbery as
appellant Puno, with no mitigating circumstance in favor of punished in Paragraph 5 of Article 294, in relation to
either of them. At any rate, the intimidation having been Article 295, of the Revised Penal Code and IMPOSING on
made with the use of a firearm, the penalty shall be each of them an indeterminate sentence of four (4) years
imposed in the maximum period as decreed by Article 295 and two (2) months of prision correccional, as minimum, to
of the Code. ten (10) years of prision mayor, as maximum, and jointly
We further hold that there is no procedural obstacle to and severally pay the offended party, Maria del Socorro M.
the conviction of appellants of the crime of simple robbery Sarmiento, the amounts of P7,000.00 as actual damages
upon an information charging them with kidnapping for and P20,000.00 as moral damages, with costs.
ransom, since SO ORDERED.
··o0o··