People v.

Puno
Facts:

At around 5:00 in the afternoon, Isabelo Puno, the personal driver of Mrs.
Maria Socorro Mutuc-Sarmientos husband, arrived at the bakeshop she owns
(Araneta Avenue).
He told Mrs. Socorro that her own driver Fred had to go to Pampanga on an
emergency so Isabelo will temporarily take his place.
When it was Mrs. Socorro's time to go home to her house in Pasig, she got
into the Mercedes Benz of her husband with Isabelo driving.
The car stopped after it turned right on a corner of Araneta Avenue.
A young man, accused Enrique Amurao (who Isabelo claimed later to be his
nephew), boarded the car beside the driver.
Once inside, Enrique clambered on top of the back side of the front seat and
went onto where Ma. Socorro was seated at the rear. He poked a gun at her.
Isabelo announced that he wanted to get money from Mrs. Socorro. She said
she has money inside her bag and they may get it just so they will let her go.
The bag contained P7,000.00 which was taken.
The two accused said that they wanted P100,000.00 more.
The car went about the Sta. Mesa area. The car sped off towards the North
superhighway.
Isabelo asked Ma. Socorro to issue a check for P100,000.00. Ma. Socorro
complied and drafted 3 checks in denominations of two for P30 thousand and
one for P40 thousand.
Isabelo turned the car around towards Metro Manila then changed his mind
and turned it towards Pampanga.
Ma. Socorro jumped out of the car and crossed to the other side of the
superhighway and, was finally able to flag down a fish vendors van.
On reaching Balintawak, Ma. Socorro reported the matter to CAPCOM.
Both accused were arrested the day after. Enrique was arrested trying to
encash Ma. Socorro's P40,000.00 check at PCI Bank, Makati.

Issue: WoN the accused committed a violation of PD No. 532 (Anti-Piracy and Anti
Highway Robbery Law of 1974)
NO (only simple robbery)
Not kidnapping for ransom as charged in the information
o It is not shown that the appellants had any motive other than the
extortion of money from Mrs. Socorro under the compulsion of threats
or intimidation. This is also admitted by the appellants.
o Appellants also had no intention whatsoever to kidnap or deprive the
complainant of her personal liberty. This is clearly demonstrated by the
testimony of Puno.
o The amounts given to the appellants cannot also be considered as
equivalent to or in the nature of ransom. When complainant gave the
cash and checks demanded from her at gun point, it cannot be
assumed that what she gave can be equated with or was in the
concept of ransom in the law of kidnapping.

These were merely amounts involuntarily surrendered by the victim

upon the occasion of a robbery or of which she was summarily divested
by appellants.
Not highway robbery (PD No. 532)
o Brigandage v. Robbery
Brigandage indiscriminate highway robbery
Robbery if the purpose is only a particular robbery (robbery in
a band if there are at least four armed men)
o The fact that the robbery in this was committed inside a car which, in
the natural course of things, was casually operating on a highway, is
not within the situation envisaged by Sec 2(e) of the decree in its
definition of terms.
o The single act of robbery conceived and committed by appellants in
this case does not constitute highway robbery or brigandage.
o