Title
Pablo y Bacungan vs. People
Case
G.R. No. 152481
Decision Date
Apr 15, 2005
Three policemen intimidated and robbed Diosdada and Mario Montecillo, falsely accusing Mario of carrying a weapon. Convicted of robbery aggravated by abuse of public position, they faced modified penalties and restitution.

Case Summary (G.R. No. 205128)

Charges and Initial Proceedings

On July 27, 1992, Bachungan and his co-accused were charged with simple robbery for allegedly extorting P5,000 from Diosdada Montecillo through threats and intimidation. The charge stemmed from an incident on July 21, 1992, where police officers allegedly forced Diosdada and Mario Montecillo to part with money under the guise of a legal arrest. The Regional Trial Court of Manila, Branch 19, convicted the three policemen of the charges, sentencing each to imprisonment of six years and one day to ten years, alongside restitution and damages.

Trial and Testimonies

The prosecution presented the Montecillos as key witnesses, detailing a harrowing experience with the accused. They described an encounter with a mobile patrol car where the officers intimidatingly suggested that Mario possessed a deadly weapon, leading to threats of arrest and prosecution. Under duress, Diosdada surrendered money and a wristwatch to the officers. Following the incident, they reported it to the relevant authorities, leading to the identification of the accused.

Court of Appeals Decision

The trial court found the accused guilty, leading to their subsequent appeals. The Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court’s decision on March 31, 1997, prompting further motions for reconsideration from Bacungan and Fortuna, all of which were denied.

Legal Arguments Presented

In the petition for review, Bacungan argued that the Court of Appeals erred by affirming his conviction, insisting that no robbery occurred since the interaction was mutual and voluntary, positing it as a case of bribery instead. He claimed that Mario’s detention was lawful given the alleged possession of an illegal weapon. Conversely, the Solicitor General contended that intimidation was clear as the officers' threats compelled the Montecillos to relinquish their belongings.

Assessment of Intimidation and the Court’s Ruling

After reviewing the case, the court found that the evidence substantiated the claim of intimidation. It agreed with prior rulings, asserting that the accused's actions instilled fear enough to obstruct the victims’ free will, thereby qualifying the incident as robbery. The court also pointed out the aggravating circumstance of "abuse of public position," which was significant given that all accused were officers of the law, utilizing their authority criminally.

Modification of Sentence

In light of the aggravating circumstanc

...continue reading

Analyze Cases Smarter, Faster
Jur helps you analyze cases smarter to comprehend faster—building context before diving into full texts.