Set-5-13-14.docx

People v. Puno 219 SCRA 85, February 17, 1993 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. He told Mrs. Sarmiento that her own driver Fred had to go to Pampanga on an emergency so Isabelo will temporarily take his place. 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. 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. Issue: 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) Held: No. 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 were only convicted of robbery.

Viernes v. People G.R. No. 161970 (June 30, 2006) FACTS: The Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Manila convicted appellant Dundee Viernes for violation of P.D. No. 532 (the Anti-Piracy and Anti-Highway Robbery Law of 1974), in relation to a robbery committed inside a passenger jeepney, which resulted in the death of a certain Ronaldo Lopango. On appeal, the Court of Appealsmodified the trial court decision by finding petitioner guilty of simple robbery under Article 294 of the Revised Penal Code. Viernes argues that his guilt was not proven beyond reasonable doubt because of the failure of the prosecution to show that the illumination of the jeepney, which allegedly bore Josefina and her husband, Ronaldo Lopango, was adequate enough to enable one to identify him. However, Josefina was hesitant to identify him as one of the malefactors. Moreover, the prosecution failed to present any of the police officers who apprehended and investigated him. Viernes further draws attention to inconsistencies in the statements of Josefina, and accuses Josefina of conspiring with the police officers in torturing him so as to force him to admit his participation in the crime. ISSUES: Whether or not Dundee Viernes is guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the charge of violation of P.D. No. 532 HELD: This Court finds that the guilt of Viernes has not been proven beyond reasonable doubt. The general rule is that contradictions and discrepancies between the testimony of a witness and his sworn statement do not necessarily discredit him since ex parte statements are generally incomplete, the rule is not without exception as, e.g., when the omission in the sworn statement refers to a very important detail of the incident which the one relating the incident as an eyewitness would not be expected to fail to mention, or when the narration in the sworn statement substantially contradicts the testimony in court.