Case No.

42

219 SCRA 85 February 17, 1993

People of the Philippines, Plaintiff-Appellee,
v.
Isabelo Puno, Defendant-Appellant.

Facts:
The accused, Isabelo Puno the personal driver o Mrs. Sarmiento’s husband, on January
13, 1988 at Quezon City, arrived at Mrs. Sarmiento's bakeshop. 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.
Ruling:
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