Case Digest (G.R. No. 152481)
Facts:
Ramon Pablo y Bacungan v. People, G.R. No. 152481, April 15, 2005, First Division, Quisumbing, J., writing for the Court.Petitioner Ramon Pablo y Bacungan (a police officer) was charged jointly with PO2 Eduardo Garcia y Paderanga and PO2 Ricardo Fortuna y Gragasin for acts that allegedly occurred on July 21, 1992. An information filed July 27, 1992, accused them of conspiring to take P5,000.00 from private complainant Diosdada Montecillo by means of threats and intimidation, contrary to law. When arraigned the three pleaded not guilty.
At trial the prosecution presented Diosdada and her brother Mario Montecillo as witnesses. The facts as recited by this Court in the companion case Fortuna v. People (G.R. No. 135784) were adopted: while the Montecillos waited for a ride, a Western Police District mobile patrol stopped; Mario was frisked, threatened with arrest and maltreatment at Bicutan, and made to board the patrol car; Diosdada followed and was forced to produce her wallet, from which P5,000.00 was taken; the policemen intimidated them into parting with money by threats of prosecution and incarceration.
The Regional Trial Court (RTC), Branch 19, Manila, convicted all three of simple robbery under paragraph 5, Article 294 of the Revised Penal Code, and sentenced each to six years and one day to ten years prision mayor, ordered restitution of P5,000.00, moral damages of P20,000.00 and attorneys’ fees of P15,000.00. Each appealed to the Court of Appeals (CA). On March 31, 1997 the CA affirmed the RTC decision; motions for reconsideration by petitioner and Fortuna were denied.
Fortuna separately filed a petition for review which this Court denied on December 15, 2000 (G.R. No. 135784), affirming conviction but modifying the penalty. Thereafter petitioner Ramon Pablo filed the present petition for review on certiorari assailing the CA decision, essentially contending (1) the facts showed bribery under Article 210, not robbery, because the payment was...(Subscriber-Only)
Issues:
- Did the prosecution prove that the acts of petitioner amounted to simple robbery under Article 294(5) of the Revised Penal Code rather than bribery under Article 210?
- Should the penalty be modified because of the aggravating circumstance of abuse of...(Subscriber-Only)
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)