Facts:

• Rufino Sanchez, a municipal policeman, falsely accused Lua Yap of possessing opium and extorted money from him.
• Sanchez, along with another police officer named Victorino Normandia, sold a substance to a Chinaman named Tan Cung Chang, claiming it was opium but it turned out to be molasses.
• Tan reported to Sanchez and Normandia, who then proceeded to the railroad station where Lua Yap was waiting for a train.
• They arrested Lua Yap and threatened to have him prosecuted for a violation of the Opium Law unless he paid them P500.
• They eventually agreed on a payment of P150, and after taking possession of the alleged opium, they released Lua Yap.
• Lua Yap later discovered that the substance he had purchased was not opium and filed a complaint against the two policemen.

Issue:

• (Unlock)

Ruling:

• The crime committed by Rufino Sanchez and Victorino Normandia was ruled as...(Unlock)

Ratio:

• The court based its decision on previous jurisprudence and legal principles.
• The court cited the case of United States vs. Gimenea, which stated the elements for the crime of bribery.
• The court found that the money was not given to the policemen for the purpose of executing a crime, which is an element of bribery.
• The court referred to the case of United States vs. Flores, which held that falsely accusing a person of a crime and obtaining money through threats and intimidation constitutes robbery.
• The court also cited the case of United States vs. Navarro, which had similar facts and held that the acts of the perpetrators constituted robb...continue reading