Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • CRIM - People Vs Puno, G.R. No. 97471

    Uploaded by

    KJPL_1987
    695 views2 pages
    The Supreme Court ruled that Isabelo Puno and Enrique Amurao could not be convicted of kidnapping for ransom. While they detained Maria Sarmiento against her will and took her money, their intent appeared to be robbery, not kidnapping for ransom. To be convicted of kidnapping for ransom, there must be clear evidence that the intent of the offenders was to deprive the victim of liberty in order to collect ransom, rather than detaining the victim incidentally during the commission of another crime like robbery. While Puno and Amurao committed a crime by robbing Sarmiento, it did not qualify as highway robbery under Presidential Decree No. 532 simply because the robbery occurred inside a car

    Original Description:

    Crim case digest

    Original Title

    CRIM - People vs Puno, G.R. No. 97471

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Report this Document
    The Supreme Court ruled that Isabelo Puno and Enrique Amurao could not be convicted of kidnapping for ransom. While they detained Maria Sarmiento against her will and took her money, their intent appeared to be robbery, not kidnapping for ransom. To be convicted of kidnapping for ransom, there must be clear evidence that the intent of the offenders was to deprive the victim of liberty in order to collect ransom, rather than detaining the victim incidentally during the commission of another crime like robbery. While Puno and Amurao committed a crime by robbing Sarmiento, it did not qualify as highway robbery under Presidential Decree No. 532 simply because the robbery occurred inside a car

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    695 views2 pages

    CRIM - People Vs Puno, G.R. No. 97471

    Uploaded by

    KJPL_1987
    The Supreme Court ruled that Isabelo Puno and Enrique Amurao could not be convicted of kidnapping for ransom. While they detained Maria Sarmiento against her will and took her money, their intent appeared to be robbery, not kidnapping for ransom. To be convicted of kidnapping for ransom, there must be clear evidence that the intent of the offenders was to deprive the victim of liberty in order to collect ransom, rather than detaining the victim incidentally during the commission of another crime like robbery. While Puno and Amurao committed a crime by robbing Sarmiento, it did not qualify as highway robbery under Presidential Decree No. 532 simply because the robbery occurred inside a car

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    of 2

    G.R. No.

    97471
    February 17, 1993
    People of the Philippines vs Puno

    Issue:
    Whether or not Isabelo Puno and Enrique Amurao can be convicted of kidnapping
    for ransom.

    Ruling:
    No, ransom is the money, price or consideration paid or demanded for redemption
    of a captured person.
    These were merely amounts involuntarily surrendered by the victim upon the
    occasion of robbery.
    To charge the accused with the crime of kidnapping for ransom, there must be
    indubitable proof that the actual intent of the offenders 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.

    Facts:
    Maria del Socorro Mutuc Sarmiento owns a bakeshop in Araneta Avenue, Quezon
    City.
    Isabelo Puno personal driver of Mrs. Sarmientos husband
    Afternoon of January 13, 1988, Isabelo puno arrived at the bakeshop and told her
    that her driver had to go to Pampanga on an emergency so he will temporarily take
    his place.
    On their way home, after the car turned right in a corner of Araneta Avenue, Puno
    stopped the car and the co-accused Enrique Amurao boarded the car beside the
    driver.
    Enirique poked a gun at Mrs. Sarmientos neck.
    Isabelo told her that they just want her money and they will let her go.
    P7,000 was took from Mrs. Sarmiento but the accused asked for another P100,000.
    Mrs. Sarmiento agreed but with the condition that the accused will drop her at a gas
    station in Makati.
    Isabelo asked Mrs. Sarmiento to issue checks for P100,000 and Mrs. Sarmiento
    complied with his request.
    Isabelo turned the car towards Manila but later changed his mind and turned the car
    again towards Pampanga.
    Mrs. Sarmiento narrated that she jumped out of the car then, crossed to the other
    side of the superhighway and was able to flag down a fish vendor's van.
    Both accused were, day after, arrested.
    The defense does not dispute the above narrative of the complainant except that
    according to Isabelo, he stopped the car at North Diversion and freely allowed Mrs.
    Sarmiento to step out of the car.
    The trial court cohered with the submission of the defense that the crime could not
    be kidnapping for ransom as charged in the information.
    While the court holds that the crime committed is robbery as defined in Article 293
    of the Code, the theory of the trial court that the same constitutes the highway
    robbery contemplated in and punished by Presidential Decree No. 532 is rejected.
    The mere fact that the robbery was committed inside a car, which was casually
    operating on a highway, does not make PD No 532 applicable to the case.

    You might also like