Case Digest (G.R. No. 97471)
Case Digest (G.R. No. 97471)
Facts:
People of the Philippines v. Isabelo Puno y Guevarra, alias "Beloy," and Enrique Amurao y Puno, alias "Enry," G.R. No. 97471, February 17, 1993, Supreme Court Second Division, Regalado, J., writing for the Court.The information, dated May 31, 1989, filed in the Regional Trial Court of Quezon City, Branch 103 as Criminal Case No. Q-57404, charged the appellants with kidnapping for ransom under Article 267 of the Revised Penal Code for acts alleged to have occurred on January 13, 1988. Upon arraignment the accused pleaded not guilty and were tried before the trial court.
The factual narrative, adopted by the trial court and not substantially disputed by the defense, was that complainant Maria del Socorro Mutuc-Sarmiento (who also testified as "Corina") owned a bakeshop in Araneta Avenue. At about 5:00 p.m. on January 13, 1988, appellant Isabelo Puno — the personal driver of complainant’s husband — offered to drive her home. After turning a corner, a younger man, Enrique Amurao, boarded the car, displayed a gun and demanded money. The bag containing P7,000 was taken; the assailants then demanded P100,000 and forced the complainant to sign three checks (two for P30,000 and one for P40,000). The complainant later escaped by jumping from the car on the North Superhighway, suffered injuries, and reported the incident at Balintawak CAPCOM. The next day both accused were arrested; Enrique was apprehended trying to cash the P40,000 check at PCI Bank in Makati.
At trial appellants admitted the taking and division of the money and that they had traveled toward Pampanga, but asserted that complainant was allowed to alight of her own volition (or that she fell while running). The trial court, while finding the evidence insufficient to sustain the charge of kidnapping for ransom, nonetheless convicted the appellants on September 26, 1990 of robbery with extortion on a highway under Presidential Decree No. 532, sentencing each to reclusion perpetua and ordering P7,000 actual and P3,000 temperate damages. Appellants appealed to the Supreme Court contesting (a) conviction under PD 532 though not charged thereunder, and (b) the trial court’s invocation of Sections 4 and 5, Rule 120 of the Rules of Court to convict on an offense different from that expressly charged.
Issues:
- May the appellants be convicted of simple robbery when they were charged with kidnapping for ransom — i.e., is robbery necessarily included in the offense charged so as to permit conviction under Sections 4 and 5, Rule 120?
- Did the facts establish kidnapping for ransom or highway robbery/brigandage punishable under Presidential Decree No. 532, or do they instead show simple robbery under Articles 293, 294 and 295 of the Revised Penal Code?
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)