Case Digest (G.R. No. 135784)
Facts:
Ricardo Fortuna y Gragasin v. People of the Philippines, G.R. No. 135784, December 15, 2000, Supreme Court Second Division, Bellosillo, J., writing for the Court.On 21 July 1992 at about 5:00 p.m., Diosdada Montecillo and her brother Mario Montecillo were approached by a Western Police District mobile patrol near the corner of Mabini and Harrison Streets. One policeman frisked Mario, seized his belt and pointed to an object in the buckle, calling it "evidence," then ordered Mario into the patrol car; Diosdada followed and sat beside him. During the ride the policemen questioned Mario about carrying a “deadly weapon,” threatened that he would be taken to Bicutan police station for interrogation and maltreatment, and told the Montecillos the bailbond was P12,000.00. The policemen demanded money, and variously inspected and took cash from Diosdada’s wallet (she testified the driver took P1,500.00 out of P5,000.00), counted the money aloud, and directed the victims where to sit and where to place their remaining cash before letting them disembark at Harrison Plaza.
The next day Diosdada reported the incident to her employer Manuel Felix, who accompanied the siblings to the office of General Diokno to lodge a complaint. Lt. Ronas assisted in identifying the policemen in a lineup: Diosdada identified PO2 Ricardo Fortuna as one who sat beside them; the complainants also identified PO2 Eduardo Garcia (the frisking policeman) and PO3 Ramon Pablo (the driver). The three policemen were charged with robbery.
After trial in the Regional Trial Court, Branch 19, Manila (Decision by Judge Zenaida R. Dacuna), the three accused were found guilty of robbery with intimidation and sentenced to six years and one day to ten years of prisión mayor, ordered to restitute P5,000.00 to the Montecillos, and to pay P20,000.00 moral damages and P15,000.00 attorney’s fees. The accused separately appealed to the Court of Appeals, which on 31 March 1997 affirmed the trial court’s verdict (ponente Associate Justice Antonio M. Martinez, with Justices Montenegro and Valdez, Jr., concurring). Ricardo Fortuna moved for reconsideration before the Court of Appeals, which denied the motion.
Fortuna alone filed a petition under Rule 45 for review on certiorari to the Supreme Court, arguing primarily that the prosecution’s evidence did not prove that...(Subscriber-Only)
Issues:
- Under a Rule 45 petition for review on certiorari, may the Supreme Court re-examine and overturn the factual findings of the trial court and the Court of Appeals in this case?
- Did the acts and circumstances proven in evidence constitute intimidation such that the money taken from the Montecillos was given under duress?
- Was there sufficient proof that petitioner Ricardo Fortuna conspired with the other policemen to commit robbery with intimidation?
- Did the Court of Appeals and trial court err in failing to apply the aggravating circumstance of abuse of public...(Subscriber-Only)
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)