En Banc
Regalado, February 17, 1993
Topic: Mental Element (Mens rea) -- Deliberate intent (Dolo) -- General and specific intent
Facts:
- January 13, 1988 in QC, at around 5:00 pm: the accused Isabelo Puno, who is the personal driver of Mrs. Sarmiento's husband (who was then away in Davao purportedly on account of local election there) arrived at Mrs. Sarmiento's bakeshop in Araneta Ave, QC
- He told Mrs. Sarmiento that her own driver Fred had to go to Pampanga on an emergency so Isabelo will temporarily take his place
- When it was time for Mrs. Sarmiento to go home to Valle Verde in Pasig, she got into her husband's Mercedes Benz with Isabelo driving
- After the car turned right on a corner of Araneta Ave, it stopped and a young man, accused Enrique Amurao, boarded the car beside the driver
- Enrique pointed a gun at Mrs. Sarmiento as Isabelo told her that he needs to "get money" from her
- Mrs. Sarmiento had P7,000 on her bag which she handed to the accused
- But the accused said that they wanted P100,000 more
- The car sped off north towards the North superhighway where Isabelo asked Mrs. Sarmiento to issue a check for P100,000
- Mrs. Sarmiento drafted 3 checks: two P30,000 checks and one P40,000 check
- Isabelo then turned the car around towards Metro Manila; later, he changed his mind and turned the car again towards Pampanga
- According to her, Mrs. Sarmiento 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, her dress had blood because according to her, she fell down on the ground and was injured when she jumped out of the car
- 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
- He said he even slowed the car down as he drove away, until he saw that his employer had gotten a ride
- He claimed that she fell down when she stubbed her toe while running across the highway
Issue:
- Whether or not the accused can be convicted of kidnapping for ransom as charged
- Whether or not the said robbery can be classified as "highway robbery" under PD No. 532 (Anti-Piracy and Anti-Highway Robbery Law of 1974)
Holding:
- No.
- No.
Ratio:
- 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.
- 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
- In the case, the restraint of her freedom of action was merely an incident in the commission of another offense primarily intended by the offenders
- This does not constitute kidnapping or serious illegal detention
- Jurisprudence reveals that during the early part of the American occupation of our country, roving bands were organized for robbery and pillage and since the then existing law against robbery was inadequate to cope with such moving bands of outlaws, the Brigandage Law was passed (this is the origin of the law on highway robbery)
- PD No. 532 punishes as highway robbery only acts of robbery perpetrated by outlaws indiscriminately against any person or persons on Philippine highways and not acts of robbery committed against only a predetermined or particular victim
- 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
- This is not justified by the accused's intention
Accused-appellants convicted of robbery (indeterminate sentence of 4 years and 2 months or prision correccional, as minimum, to 10 years of prision mayor. Accused to pay Mrs. Sarmiento P7,000 as actual damages and P20,000 as moral damages.)
No comments:
Post a Comment