Scribd
Upload
132 views1 page

People Vs Puno

The accused, Isabelo Puno and Enrique Amurao, cannot be convicted of kidnapping for ransom. While they restrained the victim's freedom of movement by threatening her in the car, their primary intent was to extort money from her through threats, not to deprive her of her liberty. Their acts also do not constitute highway robbery under PD 532, as that law is intended for indiscriminate robbery against people on highways by roving bands, not a targeted robbery of a single victim in a car on a highway. However, the accused are convicted of robbery and sentenced to 4-10 years in prison and ordered to pay the victim damages.

Uploaded by

Dennisgilbert Gonzales
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
132 views1 page

People Vs Puno

The accused, Isabelo Puno and Enrique Amurao, cannot be convicted of kidnapping for ransom. While they restrained the victim's freedom of movement by threatening her in the car, their primary intent was to extort money from her through threats, not to deprive her of her liberty. Their acts also do not constitute highway robbery under PD 532, as that law is intended for indiscriminate robbery against people on highways by roving bands, not a targeted robbery of a single victim in a car on a highway. However, the accused are convicted of robbery and sentenced to 4-10 years in prison and ordered to pay the victim damages.

Uploaded by

Dennisgilbert Gonzales
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
You are on page 1/ 1

People vs.

Puno (Crim1)
People of the Philippines, plaintiff-appellee, vs. Isabelo Puno y Guevarra, alias "Beloy," and Enrique Amurao y Puno, alias "Enry,"
accused-appellants

Regalado, February 17, 1993

Topic: Mental Element (Mens rea) -- Deliberate intent (Dolo) -- General and specific intent

Facts:
• January 13, 1988 in QC, at around 5:00 pm: the accused Isabelo Puno, who is the personal driver of Mrs. Sarmiento's husband
(who was then away in Davao purportedly on account of local election there) arrived at Mrs. Sarmiento's 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 temporarily take his
place
• When it was time for Mrs. Sarmiento to go home to Valle Verde in Pasig, she got into her husband's Mercedes Benz with Isabelo
driving
• After the car turned right on a corner of Araneta Ave, it stopped and a young man, accused Enrique Amurao, boarded the car
beside the driver
• Enrique pointed a gun at Mrs. Sarmiento as Isabelo told her that he needs to "get money" from her
• Mrs. Sarmiento had P7,000 on her bag which she handed to the accused
• But the accused said that they wanted P100,000 more
• The car sped off north towards the North superhighway where Isabelo asked Mrs. Sarmiento to issue a check for P100,000
• Mrs. Sarmiento 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, Mrs. Sarmiento jumped out of the car then, crossed to the other side of the superhighway and was able to flag
down a fish vendor's 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 complainant except that according to Isabelo, he stopped the car at
North Diversion and freely allowed Mrs. Sarmiento to step out of the car
• He said he even slowed the car down as he drove away, until he saw that his employer had gotten a ride
• He claimed that she fell down when she stubbed her toe while running across the highway

Issue:
1. Whether or not the accused can be convicted of kidnapping for ransom as charged ( No)
2. Whether or not the said robbery can be classified as "highway robbery" under PD No. 532 (Anti-Piracy and Anti-Highway Robbery
Law of 1974) (No)

Ratio:
1. 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.
• 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
• In the case, the restraint of her freedom of action was merely an incident in the commission of another offense primarily intended
by the offenders
• This does not constitute kidnapping or serious illegal detention
2. Jurisprudence reveals that during the early part of the American occupation of our country, roving bands were organized for
robbery and pillage and since the then existing law against robbery was inadequate to cope with such moving bands of outlaws, the
Brigandage Law was passed (this is the origin of the law on highway robbery)
• PD No. 532 punishes as highway robbery only acts of robbery perpetrated by outlaws indiscriminately against any person or
persons on Philippine highways and not acts of robbery committed against only a predetermined or particular victim
• The mere fact that the robbery was committed inside a car which was casually operating on a highway does not make PD No 532
applicable to the case
• This is not justified by the accused's intention
Accused-appellants convicted of robbery (indeterminate sentence of 4 years and 2 months or prision correccional, as minimum, to
10 years of prision mayor. Accused to pay Mrs. Sarmiento P7,000 as actual damages and P20,000 as moral damages.)

You might also like