G.R. No. 97471 February 17, 1993
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. ISABELO PUNO y GUEVARRA, alias “Beloy,” and ENRIQUE AMURAO y PUNO, alias “Enry,” accused-appellants.

FACTS

On January 13, 1988, in Quezon City, accused-appellant Isabelo Puno, the personal driver of the husband of Maria del Socorro Sarmiento, informed her that her regular driver was unavailable and he would drive her home. While en route, the car stopped and accused-appellant Enrique Amurao boarded. Amurao moved to the rear seat, poked a gun at Sarmiento, and announced their intent to get money from her. They took her bag containing P7,000.00. They then demanded an additional P100,000.00. While driving along the North Diversion Highway, Sarmiento was forced to issue three checks totaling P100,000.00. Eventually, Sarmiento either jumped or was allowed to exit the car on the highway. She reported the incident. The following day, Amurao was arrested while trying to encash one of the checks. The accused were charged with Kidnapping for Ransom under Article 267 of the Revised Penal Code. The trial court convicted them instead 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

Whether the accused-appellants committed the crime of Kidnapping for Ransom as charged, a violation of Presidential Decree No. 532 as found by the trial court, or the offense of simple robbery under the Revised Penal Code.

RULING

The Supreme Court ruled that the accused-appellants are guilty of the crime of Robbery under Paragraph 5, Article 294 of the Revised Penal Code. The Court held that the crime was not Kidnapping for Ransom because the appellants’ primary and specific intent was to extort money, and the deprivation of liberty was merely incidental to the robbery. The amount taken was not “ransom” as it was obtained immediately and directly from the victim. The Court also ruled that Presidential Decree No. 532 was not applicable because the law pertains to piracy or highway robbery/brigandage committed by bands of more than three armed persons for the purpose of indiscriminate robbery, which was not the circumstance in this case. The offense proved (robbery with violence or intimidation) was necessarily included in the offense charged (kidnapping for ransom). The Court modified the trial court’s decision, convicting the appellants of Robbery under Article 294(5) of the Revised Penal Code and imposing 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. They were also ordered to pay the victim P7,000.00 as actual damages and P20,000.00 as moral damages.