G.R. No. 21390 - People vs. Francisco

The People of the Philippine Islands, acting as plaintiff and appellee, brought an action against Francisco Francisco, the defendant and appellant.
Francisco Francisco was employed as a sanitary inspector in the Philippine Health Service at the time of the incident.

While inspecting merchandise in Sy Ham’s store in Pasay, the defendant discovered that a batch of lard exhibited a blackish substance, deeming it unfit for consumption.
The defendant threatened to take the unclean lard to the municipal building unless Sy Ham paid him T2, implying that failure to comply would result in legal repercussions such as arrest, prosecution, and fine imposition.
Sy Ham, motivated by fear of the ensuing legal consequences, eventually consented to the defendant’s demand, though the payment was preceded by considerable haggling – initially offering a lower sum before finally paying P2 after the defendant refused any lesser amount.

Three days after the initial incident, the defendant revisited the store to reprimand Sy Ham for divulging details of what transpired on August 7.
On August 11, accompanied by a policeman, the defendant returned to the store; during this visit, although Sy Ham contended that he had cleaned the store in anticipation of trouble, the defendant clandestinely introduced cigarette ashes into the supply of lard and additionally into some wine.
The defendant, after demonstrating the presence of cigarette ashes to the policeman, proceeded to confiscate the lard and lodged a complaint against Sy Ham for violating the regulations of the Bureau of Health.

At trial in the Court of First Instance of Manila, the defendant was convicted of robbery and was sentenced to six years, ten months and one day of presidio mayor, along with accessory penalties.
The order also imposed an obligation on the defendant to indemnify the offended party in the amount of P2 and to bear the costs of the proceedings.
Although the evidence was unambiguous in establishing the defendant’s guilt, questions arose regarding whether the offense should be characterized as bribery (under Article 383 of the Penal Code) or as robbery (under paragraph 5 of Article 503 of the same Code).

Whether the transaction between the defendant and Sy Ham constituted bribery by being mutual and voluntary, or if it amounted to robbery characterized by coercion.
Examination of whether Sy Ham’s compliance was given freely or was the result of threats of prosecution and arrest.

Whether the defendant’s act of threatening to report Sy Ham to the municipal authorities to force a payment qualifies as the use of force or intimidation as required in robbery.
Consideration of the significance of the defendant’s subsequent actions (returning with a policeman and tampering with the merchandise) in establishing the coercive nature of the encounter.

Whether previous decisions distinguishing bribery from robbery (as seen in cases such as U. S. vs. Flores, U. S. vs. Osorio, U. S. vs. Martin, U. S. vs. Sanchez, and U. S. vs. Dedulo) provide adequate guidance for classifying the offense committed in this case.