Beruflich Dokumente
Kultur Dokumente
Puno
Facts:
8 Sep. 1970 around 2pm Ernesto Puno entered the bedroom of 72 y.o. Francisca Col also known as Aling Kikay, in
Little Bagio, barrio Tinajeros, Malabon, Rizal. Aling Kikay was on the bed, when Puno entered & insulted her by
saying Mangkukulam ka, mambabarang, mayroon kang bubuyog. Then, he repeatedly slapped her and struck her
on the head several times with a hammer until she was dead. The assault was witnessed by Hilaria dela Cruz who
was present in the room during the attack, and by Lina Pajes, a tenant in the next room. After killing the old lady Puno
went into the next room, where the girls had taken refuge & made the following confession & threat Huag kayong
magkakamaling tumawag ng pulis at sabihin nunyo na umalis kayo ng bahay at hindi ninyo alam kung sino ang
pumatay sa matanda. Or according to Lina pinatay ko na ang iyong matanda. Huag kayong tumawag ng pulis. Pag
tumawag kayo ng pulis, kayo ang pahihigantihan ko. After Puno left, Lina called the police. Puno fled to his parents
house then later on to his second cousin, Teotimos house.
?
10 Sep. 1970 Punos father surrendered him to the police. He was brought to the National Mental Hospital
in Mandaluyong, Rizal. He was charged with murder in the municipal court.
?
Punos wife, his sister in law and his 2nd cousin all testified in court describing his appearance [bloodshot
eyes] and his behavior immediately before and after them murder, [boxing the dog, having an imaginary bumble bee
flying around him, singing, etc..]
?
The defense presented 3 doctors to prove insanity but the doctors instead proved that Puno had acted with
discernment when he killed Aling Kikay.
?
Dr. Araceli Maravilla of Dr. Jose Reyes Memorial hospital said Puno was an outpatient who could very well
live with society even if he was afflicted with schizophrenic reaction.
?
Dr. Reynaldo Robles stated that Puno had schizophrenic reaction but that this condition was not socially
incapacitating
?
Dr. Carlso Vicente of the National Mental Hospital testified that Puno acted w/ discernment & could distinguish
right from wrong.
?
21 October 1970 Puno was indicted for the murder in the Circuit Criminal Court at Pasig, Rizal. Alleged in
the information as aggravating circumstances were evident premeditation, abuse of superiority and disregard for sex.
Puno was sentenced to death and ordered to pay P22K to the heirs of the victim
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
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:
1.
Whether or not the accused can be convicted of kidnapping for ransom as charged
2.
Whether or not the said robbery can be classified as "highway robbery" under PD No. 532 (AntiPiracy and Anti-Highway Robbery Law of 1974)
Holding:
1.
No.
2.
No.
Ratio:
1.
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
2.
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