People v Puno

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"

alintawak, 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 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 B
- 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. Sarmiento jumped out of 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.

RULINBG/ HELD
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
 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

O
n

H
i
g
h
w
a
y

R
o
b
b
e
r
y

(
P
D

N
o
.

5
3
2
)
- 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

O
n

S
i
m
p
l
e
R
o
b
b
e
r
y
- 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

S
U
P
R
E
M
E

C
O
U
R
T

R
U
L
I
N
G
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.