Case Title: PP vs Puno (Topic: Deceit/Dolo under General and specific intent)

G.R. No. 97471, 02/17/1993

Plaintiff-appellee: People of the Philippines (The Solicitor General)
Accused-appellants: Isabel Beloy Puno and Enrique Enry Puno (Edward C. Castaeda)
Facts:

The accused are were charged with kidnapping for ransom, the accused pleaded not guilty during
the arraignment.
September 26, 1990 they were sentenced of being guilty of robbery with extortion committed on
a highway, the said act was punishable under the PD No. 532 and was sentenced to jail to a term
of reclusion perpetua. They were also asked to pay the actual damages.
Mrs. Maria Socorro Mutuc-Sarmiento (Sarmiento) an owner of a bakeshop in Araneta Avenue,
Quezon city. In January 13, 1988 the accused Isabelo Puno (Beloy) is the personal driver of
Sarmientos husband who is in Davao, Beloy said that he would be the one to substitute for the
real driver of Sarmiento because of the an emergency.
Sarmiento was heading back to her home in Valle Verde Pasig, with Beloy as her driver and when
they are in a corner of Araneta Avenue, Beloy stopped which allowed Enrique Puno (Enry) to
enter the said car. Enry went to where Sarmiento was seated and pointed a gun towards Sarmiento
and said Maa,m you know, I want to get money from you. In response Sarmiento said that she
has money (amounting to P 7,000) inside her bag and get it so that they can let her go.
Furthermore, Beloy and Enry demanded that they still want P100,000 more Sarmiento agreed
with them and asked them to drop her off at a gas station near Kamagong St. Makati When they
are in the area of Sta. Mesa, Sarmiento is holding to her rosary while Enrys gun was pointing at
her neck.
They went towards the North superhighway. Beloy demanded Sarmiento to issue a check for the
said amount, Sarmiento did comply and issued a check in three denomination two for 30
thousand and one for 40 thousand pesos. Beloy changed his mind going back to Metro Manila but
did not continue. Sarmiento jumped out of the car then crossed the superhighway and hailed a
van, Sarmientos dress had blood because she fell down on the ground and was injured when she
jumped out of the car.
The statement above was contradicting to the statement of the accused, they allegedly stopped
north bound and they let Sarmiento to step out of the car and waited for her to get a ride. She fell
down when she stubbed her toe while crossing the highway.

Issues:

W/N the accused-appellants committed the felony of kidnapping for ransom under article 267 of
the Revised Penal Code.

Rationale/Doctrines:

WHEREFORE, the assailed judgment of the trial court is hereby SET ASIDE and another one is rendered
CONVICTING accused-appellants Isabelo Puno y Guevarra and Enrique Amurao y Puno of robbery as Punished in Paragraph 5 of Article 294, in
relation to Article 295, of the Revised Penal Code and IMPOSING on each of them 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, and jointly and severally pay the offended party,
Maria del Socorro M. Sarmiento, the amounts of P7,000.00 as actual damages and P20,000.00 as moral damages, with costs.

The trial court cohered with the submission of the defense that the crime could not be
kidnapping for ransom as charged in the information. We likewise agree.

there is no showing whatsoever that appellants had any motive, nurtured prior to or at the time
they committed the wrongful acts against complainant, other than the extortion of money from
her under the compulsion of threats or intimidation

With respect to the specific intent of appellants vis-a-vis the charge that they had kidnapped the
victim, we can rely on the proverbial rule of ancient respectability that for this crime to exist,
there
must
be
indubitable
proof
that
the actual intent of the malefactors was to deprive the offended party of her liberty

That appellants in this case had no intention whatsoever to kidnap or deprive the complainant of
her personal liberty is clearly demonstrated in the veritably confessional testimony of appellant
Puno:
o

A Because while we were on the way back I (sic) came to my mind that if we reach
Balintawak or some other place along the way we might be apprehended by the police.
So when we reached Santa Rita exit I told her "Mam (sic) we will already stop and allow
you to get out of the car." 16

In relation to the topic of General and Specific Intent

There is no general intent in the case for the said felony committed by the accused is not
committed by dolus, in other words the accused does not have any malice intent to injure Sarmiento. But
however there is a specific intent coming from the accused because of the fact that they only want to get
money from Sarmiento for their needs (to cure the ulcer) so as to the specific intent, they have the intent
to gain.