Scribd
Upload
251 views3 pages

Case No. 4 PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v. ISABELO PUNO y GUEVARRA

The accused-appellants were charged with kidnapping for ransom but the Supreme Court found they did not commit this crime. For kidnapping to occur, there must be intent to deprive liberty, but here the restraint was incidental to robbery. The appellants' goal was extortion, as they admitted demanding money from the victim at gunpoint. The amounts given could not be considered ransom as they were surrendered immediately under duress, not for later redemption. Therefore, the crime was robbery instead of kidnapping for ransom.

Uploaded by

Carmel Grace Kiwas
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
251 views3 pages

Case No. 4 PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v. ISABELO PUNO y GUEVARRA

The accused-appellants were charged with kidnapping for ransom but the Supreme Court found they did not commit this crime. For kidnapping to occur, there must be intent to deprive liberty, but here the restraint was incidental to robbery. The appellants' goal was extortion, as they admitted demanding money from the victim at gunpoint. The amounts given could not be considered ransom as they were surrendered immediately under duress, not for later redemption. Therefore, the crime was robbery instead of kidnapping for ransom.

Uploaded by

Carmel Grace Kiwas
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
You are on page 1/ 3

G.R. No. 97471. February 17, 1993.

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee,


v
ISABELO PUNO y GUEVARRA, alias "Beloy," and ENRIQUE AMURAO
y PUNO, alias "Enry," Accused-Appellants.

Facts:
Appellants were charged with kidnapping for ransom, the said
accused, being then private individuals, conspiring together, confederating
with and mutually helping each other, did, then and there, wilfully,
unlawfully and feloniously kidnap and carry away one Maria Del Socorro
Sarmiento Y Mutuc for the purpose of extorting ransom, to the damage
and prejudice of the said offended party in such amount as may be
awarded to her under the provisions of the Civil Code.

Maria Socorro Mutuc-Sarmiento owns a bakeshop in Araneta


Avenue, Quezon City called Nika Cakes and Pastries, she has a driver of
her own just as her husband does, but around 5:00 in the afternoon, the
accused Isabelo Puno, who is the personal driver of Mrs. Sarmiento's
husband, arrived at the bakeshop. He told Mrs. Socorro that her driver
Fred had to go to Pampanga on an emergency, so Isabelo will temporarily
take his place. When travelling, the car turned right in a corner of Araneta
Avenue and stopped. A young man, accused Enrique Amurao, boarded the
car beside the driver. Enrique clambered on top of the back side of the front
seat and went onto where Ma. Socorro was seated at the rear which he then
poked a gun at her. Isabelo, who had earlier told her that Enrique is his
nephew announced that they wanted to get money from her so Mrs.
Soccoro said that she has money inside her bag and they may get it just so
they will let her go. The bag contained P7,000 00 and was taken.

But the two was not satisfied and demanded P100,000.00 more to
which Ma. Socorro agreed to give them but with the condition that they
drop her of at a gas station in Kamagong St., Makati where the money is.
The car sped off north towards the North superhighway. There Isabelo
“Beloy” asked Ma. Socorro to issue a check for P100,000.00 to which Ma.
Socorro complied and drafted 3 checks in denominations of two for P30
thousand and one for P40 thousand. Later, he turned the car again towards
Pampanga which the opportunity for escape befell Mrs. Socorro and
jumped out of the car then, crossed to the other side of the superhighway
and, after some vehicles ignored her, she was finally able to flag down a
fish vendor's van. On reaching Balintawak, Ma. Socorro reported the
matter to CAPCOM. Both accused were, day after, arrested. Enrique was
arrested trying to encash Ma. Socorro's P40,000.00 check at PCI Bank,
Makati.

The defense does not dispute said narrative of complainant, except


that, according to appellant Puno, he stopped the car at North Diversion
and freely allowed complainant to step out of the car. He even slowed the
car down as he drove away, until he saw that his employer had gotten a
ride. The appellants further testified that they brought the Mercedes Benz
car to Dolores, San Fernando, Pampanga and parked it near a barangay or
police outpost. They thereafter ate at a restaurant and divided their loot.
Much later, when he took the stand at the trial of this case, appellant Puno
tried to mitigate his liability by explaining that he was in dire need of
money for the medication of his ulcers

Issue:
Whether accused-appellants committed the felony of kidnapping for
ransom under Article 267 of the Revised Penal Code.

Ruling:
No, the accused-appellants did not commit the felony of kidnapping
for ransom under Article 267 of the Revised Penal Code.

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 where such restraint of her freedom of action was merely an
incident in the commission of another offense primarily intended by the
offenders. The appellants in this case had no intention to kidnap or deprive
the complainant of her personal liberty is clearly demonstrated in the
veritably confessional testimony of appellant Puno.

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. This much is admitted by both
appellants, without any other esoteric qualification or dubious justification.
Appellant Puno, as already stated, candidly laid the blame for his
predicament on his need for funds for

Neither can it be considered the amounts given to appellants as


equivalent to or in the nature of ransom, considering the immediacy of
their obtention from the 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
cash and checks demanded from her at gunpoint, what she gave under the
circumstances of this case can be equated with or was in the concept of
ransom in the law of kidnappings. These were merely amounts
involuntarily surrendered by the victim upon the occasion of a robbery or
of which she was summarily divested by appellants. Accordingly, the
Court held that the crime committed is robbery as defined in Article 293 of
the Code.

You might also like