PEOPLE VS.

PUNO
GR. No. 97471 February 17, 1993
Regalado, J.

FACTS: At around 5:00pm of January 13, 1998, the accused Isabelo Puno who is
the personal driver of Mrs. Maria Socorro Mutuc-Sarmientos husband (who was
at Davao at that time) arrived at Mrs. Socorros bakeshop and told her that her
own driver, Fred, had to go to Pampanga on an emergency. When it was her time
home to Valle Verde in Pasig, she got into the Mercedez Benz of her husband
with Isabelo on the wheel. After the car turned right in a corner of Araneta Ave.,
it stopped and a young man, accused Enrique Amurao boarded the car beside the
driver. Isabelo told her that the latter is his nephew. Enrique pointed a gun
towards Mrs. Socorro while Isabelo stated that he wants to get money from her.
Mrs. Socorro said that she has money inside her bag amounting to P7000.00 and
gave it to them. Further on the two told her that they wanted P100 000.00 more,
Mrs. Socorro drafted 3 checks. Isabelo then turned the car towards Metro Manila
but later on changed his mind and turned the car towards Pampanga. Mrs.
Socorro, according to her jumped out of the car and flagged down a fish vendors
van. Upon reaching Balintawak, Mrs. Socorro reported the matter to CAPCOM.
Both accused were arrested the day after.

ISSUE: 1. Whether or not the accused-appellants committed the felony of

kidnapping for ransom as charged.
2. Whether or not the said robbery can be classified as highway robbery
under PD. No. 532

RULING: 1. No, the accused-appellants did not committed the felony of kidnapping
for ransom as charged. There is no showing that appellants had any motive other
than the extortion of money from complainant under the compulsion of threats or
intimidation. 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.
2. No, the said robbery cannot be classified as highway robbery under
PD. No. 532. Presidential Decree No. 532 punishes as highway robbery or
brigandage only acts of robbery perpetrated by outlaws indiscriminately against
any person or persons on Philippine highways as defined therein and not acts of
robbery committed against only a predetermined or particular victim. The
coincidental fact that the robbery in the present case was committed inside the car
casually operating on a highway is not within its scope.