Title
Remolano y Caluscusan vs. People
Case
G.R. No. 248682
Decision Date
Oct 6, 2021
A Metro Manila aide accused of extorting P200 from a motorist was acquitted as intimidation, a key element of robbery, was unproven, and direct bribery was not charged.

Case Summary (G.R. No. 248682)

Respondent

People of the Philippines

Key Dates

  • September 20, 2013: Entrapment operation and alleged extortion
  • June 2, 2017: Trial court judgment
  • December 12, 2018: Court of Appeals decision
  • July 30, 2019: CA resolution denying reconsideration
  • October 6, 2021: Supreme Court decision

Applicable Law

  • 1987 Philippine Constitution (due process, right to be informed of charges)
  • Revised Penal Code:
    • Simple Robbery (Articles 293 & 294[5])
    • Direct Bribery (Article 210)
  • Rules of Court, Rule 120, Sections 4–5 (variance between charged and proved offense)

Factual Background

PNP intelligence received reports that MMDA traffic aides were extorting motorists. An entrapment was staged: SPO1 Cardines deliberately swerved his vehicle, was flagged down by Remolano, and handed him two marked ₱100 bills in exchange for not issuing a ticket. Remolano was immediately arrested; marked-money residue was found on his hands.

Trial Court Ruling

The Regional Trial Court convicted Remolano of simple robbery for:

  1. Unlawfully taking ₱200 from the complainant.
  2. Using intimidation (“Sige, pagbibigyan kita pero bahala ka na… kahit magkano lang”) to induce payment.
    Co-accused Tamor was acquitted for reasonable doubt.

Court of Appeals Ruling

The Court of Appeals:

  • Found intimidation absent in a police-planned entrapment involving an undercover officer.
  • Held that the elements proven corresponded to Direct Bribery, not robbery.
  • Modified the conviction to Direct Bribery (RPC Art. 210) and imposed imprisonment and fine.

Issue

Whether converting the conviction from robbery to direct bribery violated petitioner’s constitutional rights to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation and to due process.

Supreme Court Ruling

The Supreme Court granted the petition, holding that:

  1. The Information charged robbery by intimidation; it did not allege a voluntary offer, agreement, or gift necessary for direct bribery.
  2. Robbery and direct bribery are distinct offenses; neither includes the other.
  3. Convict

...continue reading

Analyze Cases Smarter, Faster
Jur is a legal research platform serving the Philippines with case digests and jurisprudence resources.