People v Puno
Doctrine:
Petition: Resolution
Plaintiff-Appellees: People of the Philippines
Accused-Appellant: Isabelo Puno y Guevarra alias “Beloy” and Enrique Amurao y Puno alias “Enry”
Date: February 17, 1993
Pontente: Justice Regalado
Facts:
 January 13, 1988 – In Quezon City, the two accused,
kidnap and carry away Maria del Socorro
Sarmiento y Mutuc for the purposes of extorting
ransom.
 September 26, 1990 – found guilty of robbery with
extortion punishable under PD No. 532; sentenced
to a jail term of reclusion perpetua and ordered to
pay jointly and severally the victim P7,000.00 as
actual damages and P3,000.00 as temperate
damages.
 Appellants contend that the court erred in (1) in
convicting them under PD No. 532 since they were
not expressly charged with the crime therein; (2) in
applying Sec. 4 and 5, Rule 120 of the Rules of Court
since the charge under the PD is not the offense
proved.
 Antecedent facts:
o January 13, 1988. Accused Isabelo Puno is the
personal driver of victim Sarmiento’s
husband. One day, he told Sarmiento that her
personal driver had to go to Pampanga, so
Puno will be her driver instead. Sarmiento
had to go to Pasig.
o After the car turned in a corner of Araneta
Avenue, it stopped and accused Enrique
Amurao boarded the car beside the driver.
Enrique poked a gun at Sarmiento and asked
for money. Victim gave P7,000. The accused
asked for P100,000.00 more. Victim said that
she should be dropped at her gas station
where the money is.
o The car sped off towards the North
superhighway. Isabelo asked the victim to
draft a check instead. Victim obliged. Accused
asked her to swallow a pill but she refused.
Digest by: Kris Villanueva || Group 2 || Block B2017
o Isabelo turned the car around towards Metro
Manila, but he changed his mind and turned
the car towards Pampanga again. Victim
jumped out of the car, crossed the other side
of the road, was able to flag down a fish
vendor’s van. Upon reaching Balintawak,
victim reported the matter to CAPCOM.
o Accused were arrested at PCI Bank, Makati
the day after.
Issue: Whether accused-appellants committed the
felony of kidnapping for ransom; or a violation of PD
No. 532 (Anti-Piracy and Anti-Highway Robbery Law
of 1974) which is found by the trial court; or the
offense of simple robbery punished by Art. 294 RPC.
Held: The accused-appellants are guilty of
robbery punishable under Art. 294 of the RPC.
Ratio:
 The motive and specific intent of the accused in
perpetrating the acts are invaluable aids in arriving
at a correct conclusion.
 There is no showing that appellants had any motive
other than the extortion of money from the victim.
Puno candidly said that he needed money to cure
his ulcers.
 Re: specific intent – the rule is that “there must be
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 their testimonies,
said that they had no intention to kidnap or deprive
the victim of her liberty.
 The money given to the appellants is not ransom. It
was money involuntarily surrendered by the victim
upon the occasion of a robbery.
 PD No. 532 is not a modification of Article 267 of
RPC on kidnapping and serious illegal detention,
but of Articles 306 and 307 on brigandage. The
purpose of brigandage is indiscriminate highway
robbery.
 PD No. 532 punishes as high way robbery or
brigandage only acts of robbery perpetrated by
outlaws indiscriminately against any person or
persons on Philippine highways as defined, and not
acts of robbery committed against only a
predetermined or particular victim.
 The offense committed by appellants is simple
robbery defined in Art. 293 and punishable under
Art. 294 of RPC with prision correccional in its
maximum period to prision mayor in its medium
period.
 Aggravating circumstances of craft shall be
appreciated against both of them, and abuse of
confidence shall be applied against Puno, with no
mitigating circumstances in favour of any of them.
Since there is intimidation through the use of
firearm, penalty shall be imposed in the maximum
period.

Disposition: Judgement of trial court is SET ASIDE.

Accused-appellants are convicted of ROBBERY as
punished in Par. 5, Art. 294 in relation to Art. 295 of
RPC, and IMPOSING on each of them an
indeterminate sentence of four years and two
months prision correccional as minimum, to ten
years of prision mayor as maximum and jointly
and severally pay victim P7,000.00 as actual damages
and P20, 000 as moral damages, with costs.

Digest by: Kris Villanueva || Group 2 || Block B2017