Shayne Sigua

Case Name: People vs. Puno

G.R. No and Case date: G.R. No. 97471, February 17, 1993
Ponente: Regalado, J.
Subject: Criminal Law 1
Topic: General and Specific Intent
Doctrine and Rules of Law:
PD No. 532 Brigandage Law
The motive and specific intent in perpetrating the acts complained of are invaluable aids in
arriving at a correct appreciation and accurate conclusion of a crime. Motive of the accused is
relevant or essential to determine the specific nature of the crime.
Rule of ancient respectability that for the crime of kidnapping to exist, there must be indubitable
proof that the actual intent of the malefactors was to deprive the offended party of her liberty, and
not when such restraint of her freedom of action was merely an incident in the commission of
another offense primarily intended by the others

Facts:
January 13, 1988, in Quezon City, Isabelo Puno and Enrique Amurao, the accused, conspired
together and kidnapped Maria del Socorro Sarmiento to extort ransom.
Both accused plead not guilty so they went to trial, but found guilty of robbery with extortion
committed on a highway, punishable under PD No. 532 on September 26, 1990. They were
sentenced to a jail term of reclusion perpetua and to pay jointly P7,000 as actual damages and
P3,000 as temperate damages.
At around 5:00 om on January 13, 1988 in QC, respondent Puno, who is the personal driver of
Mrs. Sarmientos husband (away in Davao for election) arrived at Mrs. Sarmientos bakeshop in
Araneta Ave, QC.
He told Mrs. Sarmiento that her own driver, Fred, had to go to Pampanga on an emergency so
Isabelo will take over his job for the day.
When it was time for Mrs. Sarmiento to go home to Valle Verde in Pasig, she got into her
husbands Mercedes Benz with Isabelo as the driver.
On their way home, after the car turned right on a corner of Araneto Ave, it stopped and a young
man, respondent Amurao, boarded the car beside the driver.
Amurao pointed a gun at Mrs. Sarmiento as Isabelo told her that he needs to get money from
her.
Mrs. Sarmiento had P7,000 in her bag which she handed to the accused but the accused said
that they wanted P 100,000 more.
The car sped off north towards the North superhiway where Isabelo asked Mrs. Sarmiento to
issue a check for P100,000. So she drafted 3 checks: two P30,000 checks and one P40,000
check.
Isabelo then turned the car around towards Metro Manila; later, he changed his mind and turned
the car again towards Pampanga.
According to her testimony, Mrs. Sarmiento jumped out of the car then, crossed to the other side
of the superhiway and was able to flag down a fish vendors 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.
The defense does not dispute the above narrative of the complaint except that according to
Isabelo, he stopped the car at North Diversion and freely allowed Mrs. Sarmiento to step out of
the car.
o He said he even slowed the car down as he drove away, until he saw that his employer
had gotten a ride
o He claimed that she fell down when she stubbed her toe while running across the
highway.
Issue:
WoN accused-appellants committed the felony of kidnapping for ransom under RPC Art. 267 or a
violation of PD No. 532 (Anti-Piracy and Anti-Highway Robery Law of 1974) as contended by the
Solicitor General and found by the trial court; or the offense of simple robbery punished by RPC
Art. 294 Par (5), as claimed by the defense.
Shayne Sigua

Holding:
The trial court cohered with the submission of the defense that the crime could not be kidnapping
for ransom as charged in the information. The Court agrees.
The motive and specific intent in perpetrating the acts complained of are invaluable aids in
arriving at a correct appreciation and accurate conclusion of a crime. Motive of the accused is
relevant or essential to determine the specific nature of the crime.
o In 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 under the compulsion of threats or
intimidation.
With regards to the specific intent of appellants vis--vis 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, and not when such restraint of her freedom of action was merely an
incident in the commission of another offense primarily intended by the others.
o The appellants in this case had no intention to kidnap or deprive the complaint of her
personal liability.
Ransom is the money, price or consideration paid or demanded for redemption of a captured
persons payment/ releases from captivity.
o Neither can we consider the amounts given to appellants as equivalent to or in the nature
of ransom, considering the immediacy of their obtention thereof from the complainant
personally.
o What was given by the victim were amounts involuntarily surrendered by the victim upon
the occasion of a robbery,
While the Court admits that what took place is robbery, the Court rejects the theory of the trial
court that the same constitutes the highway robbery, or brigandage.
o The essence of brigandage is wherein the unlawful acts are directed not only against
specific, intended or preconceived victims but against any and all prospective victims
anywhere on the highway and whatsoever they potentially be.
o Erroneous advertence is nevertheless made by the court below to the fact that the crime
of robbery committed by appellants should be covered by the said amendatory decree
just because it was committed on a highway.
o The Court holds that the offense committed by appellants is simple robbery defined in
Article 293 of RPC, and punished under Paragraph 5 of Article 294 of RPC with prision
correccional in its maximum period and prision mayor in its medium period. Appellants
have acted in conspiracy.
o Aggravating circumstances of craft shall be appreciated against both appellants and that
abuse of confidence shall be further applied to Puno, with no mitigating circumstances in
favor of them. Due to the use of firearm to intimidate, the penalty shall be imposed in the
maximum period as decreed by Article 295 of the Code.
Court Ruling: WHEREFORE, the assailed judgment 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
amounts of P7,000.00 as actual damages and P20,000.00 as moral damages, with costs.