PEOPLE VS ISABELO PUNO Y GUEVARRA

Facts:
Isabelo Puno is the driver of Mr. Socorro. While Mr. Socorro was allegedly in Davao for a local election, Isabelo
arrived at Mrs. Socorro’s bakeshop told her that her own driver had to go to Pampanga for an emergency.
Hence, Isabelo will take his place. Isabelo was driving the Mercedes Benz to bring Mrs. Socorro home
Suddenly, accused Enrique Amurao (nephew of Isabelo) boarded the car beside Isabelo and poked a gun at
Mrs. Socorro. An initial P7K was taken from her which was in her bag. They demanded P100K more. The
whole time, the gun was pointed at Mrs. Socorro’s neck. They then asked her to issue a check. After drafting 3
checks (2 checks for P30K and 1 check for P40K).

Isabelo kept on driving the car until Mrs. Socorro jumped out and then ran. Both Isabelo and Enrique were
caught the next day when they were trying to encash the checks they took. An information of kidnapping for
ransom was filed. Defense argues that it should be simple robbery under Art294 of the RPC. TC: guilty of
violation of PD532 (Anti Piracy and Anti Highway Robbery Law of 1974). SolGen agrees with this based on the
observation that PD532 modified art267 of the RPB.

Issue: What crime was committed? Robbery under Art.294?

Held:
The rule in criminal law is that the motive and specific intent of the accused in perpetrating the acts
complained of are invaluable aids at arriving at a correct determination of the crime for which said accused
should be held liable. Thus, if murder was committed in furtherance of rebellion then rebellion absorbs murder.
Whereas, if murder wascommitted because the accused has his own personal motive, rebellion and murder
would constitute separate offenses.

In this case, there is no showing that the accused had any motive other than to extort money under the
compulsion of threats or intimidation. This was admitted when Isabelo admitted to Mrs. Socorro that he needed
money because he had an ulcer and that he tried getting advances from the office to no avail. For the crime of
kidnapping to exist, the rule is that there must be an actual intent to deprive the offended party of her liberty.
This is different from the situation wherein the restraint of freedom was only incidental to the commission of
another offense which was primarily intended by the offenders. Thus, as early as US vs Ancheta, it was held
that, even if the victims were detained or forcibly taken but the primary and ultimate purpose was to kill them,
the incidental deprivation of liberty does not constitute kidnapping or serious illegal detention. In this case, the
testimonies of the accused show that they had no intention to deprive Mrs. Socorro of her liberty. There was no
ransom either. Ransom is the money, price or consideration paid or demanded for redemption of a captured
person or payment for release from captivity. Here, the complainant readily gave the case and checks when
demanded from her at gunpoint. These were merely amounts involuntarily surrendered by Mrs. Socorro on the
occasion of the robbery. Thus, while the crime committed was indeed robbery, it is not the highway robbery
under PD532.

Contrary to what the SolGen postulates, PD532 does not modify Art267 (Kidnapping and serious illegal
detention). Instead, what it modifies is Art306 and 307 on Brigandage. This is clear from the fact that under the
PD, highway robbery is synonymously used with brigandage. This is in fact consistent with the SC’s earlier
rulings that highway robbers and brigands are synonymous. Brigandage is indiscriminate highway robbery
(formation of a band by more than 3armed persons for the purpose of committing robbery in the highway, or
kidnapping persons for the purpose of extortion or to obtain ransom or for any other purpose to be attained by
means of force and violence, they shall be deemed highway robbers or brigands --- art.306.) whereas, if the
purpose is only a particular robbery, then the crime is only robbery.