Title
People vs. Puno y Guevarra
Case Decision Date
G.R. No. 97471 Feb 17, 1993
Accused-appellants, posing as drivers, abducted and extorted money from a
bakeshop owner. The Supreme Court ruled the crime as simple robbery, not
kidnapping or highway robbery, due to lack of intent to deprive liberty and
targeted nature.
Jur.ph - Case Digest (G.R. No. 97471)
Advanced Research
Facts:
Background of the Case
The case involves accused-appellants Isabelo Puno y Guevarra and Enrique
Amurao y Puno, who were charged with kidnapping for ransom under Article
267 of the Revised Penal Code. The incident occurred on January 13, 1988, in
Quezon City.
Incident Details
Mrs. Maria Socorro Mutuc-Sarmiento, the victim, owned a bakeshop in Quezon
City. On the day of the incident, Isabelo Puno, the personal driver of Mrs.
Sarmiento’s husband, arrived at the bakeshop and informed her that her
regular driver had an emergency. Puno offered to drive her home.
While driving, the car stopped, and Enrique Amurao boarded the vehicle.
Amurao pointed a gun at Mrs. Sarmiento, and Puno demanded money from
her. She handed over her bag containing P7,000.00 and later issued three
checks totaling P100,000.00 under duress.
The car was driven towards the North Superhighway, where Mrs. Sarmiento
managed to escape by jumping out of the vehicle. She reported the incident to
CAPCOM the following day.
Arrest and Trial
Both accused were arrested the day after the incident. Enrique Amurao was
caught attempting to encash one of the checks issued by Mrs. Sarmiento.
The trial court convicted the accused of robbery with extortion committed on a
highway under Presidential Decree No. 532 (Anti-Piracy and Anti-Highway
Robbery Law of 1974) and sentenced them to reclusion perpetua.
Issue:
1. Whether the accused committed kidnapping for ransom under Article 267 of
the Revised Penal Code.
2. Whether the crime committed falls under Presidential Decree No. 532 (Anti-
Piracy and Anti-Highway Robbery Law of 1974).
3. Whether the offense should be classified as simple robbery under Paragraph 5,
Article 294 of the Revised Penal Code, as argued by the defense.
Ruling:
The Supreme Court set aside the trial court’s judgment and ruled that the
accused committed simple robbery under Paragraph 5, Article 294 of the
Revised Penal Code, not kidnapping for ransom or highway robbery under
Presidential Decree No. 532.
The Court imposed 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, on each accused. They were also ordered to jointly and severally
pay the victim P7,000.00 as actual damages and P20,000.00 as moral damages.
Ratio:
1. Kidnapping for Ransom Not Proven: The Court found no evidence that the
accused intended to deprive the victim of her liberty. The primary intent was to
extort money, and the restraint of her freedom was incidental to the robbery.
2. Highway Robbery Under PD 532 Not Applicable: The Court held that
Presidential Decree No. 532 applies to indiscriminate acts of robbery on
highways, not to targeted acts against a specific victim. The crime committed
by the accused did not meet the criteria for highway robbery or brigandage
under the decree.
3. Simple Robbery Established: The elements of robbery—unlawful taking, intent
to gain, and intimidation—were proven. The Court ruled that the offense was
simple robbery, punishable under Paragraph 5, Article 294 of the Revised Penal
Code.
4. Procedural Validity: The Court held that the accused could be convicted of
simple robbery, a lesser offense included in the charge of kidnapping for
ransom, as the elements of robbery were necessarily included in the
information filed against them.
