FIRST DIVISION

[G.R. No. 152481. April 15, 2005.]

RAMON PABLO y BACUNGAN , petitioner, vs. PEOPLE OF THE

PHILIPPINES, respondent.

DECISION

QUISUMBING, J : p

Assailed in this petition for review on certiorari are the Decision, 1 dated March 31,
1997, and Resolution, 2 dated September 25, 1998, of the Court of Appeals in CA-
G.R. CR No. 16894, affirming the Decision 3 of the Regional Trial Court of Manila,
Branch 19, in Criminal Case No. 92-108526.

The RTC convicted petitioner Ramon Pablo y Bacungan, Eduardo Garcia y

Paderanga, and Ricardo Fortuna y Gragasin, of simple robbery and sentenced each
to imprisonment for six (6) years and one (1) day to ten (10) years of prision mayor,
and to solidarily pay private complainants P5,000 as actual damages, P20,000 as
moral damages, and P15,000 as attorney's fees.

On July 27, 1992, petitioner and his two co-accused were charged in an information
which reads:

That on or about July 21, 1992, in the City of Manila, Philippines, the said
accused conspiring and confederating together and helping one another, did
then and there wilfully, unlawfully and feloniously, with intent of gain and by
means of threats and intimidation of person, to wit: by then and there
demanding from Diosdada Montecillo y Olidan the sum of P5,000.00 and
threatening to file charges against her brother, Mario Montecillo y Olidan and
bring him to Bicutan should she refuse to give, take, rob and extort the
amount of P5,000.00 belonging to Diosdada Montecillo y Olidan, against her
will, to the damage and prejudice of the said Diosdada Montecillo y Olidan in
the aforesaid amount of P5,000.00, Philippine currency.

Contrary to law. 4

When arraigned, petitioner and his two co-accused pleaded not guilty. At the
ensuing trial, the prosecution presented private complainants Diosdada Montecillo
and Mario Montecillo as witnesses.

By way of antecedents, the instant case arose from the same incident as the case of
Fortuna v. People , 5 hence we reproduce below the narration of facts in said case as
decided by this Court:

On 21 July 1992 at about 5:00 o'clock in the afternoon, while Diosdada

Montecillo and her brother Mario Montecillo were standing at the corner of
Mabini and Harrison Streets waiting for a ride home, a mobile patrol car of
the Western Police District with three (3) policemen on board stopped in
front of them. The policeman seated on the right at the front seat alighted
and without a word frisked Mario. He took Mario's belt, pointed to a
supposedly blunt object in its buckle and uttered the word "evidence." Then
he motioned to Mario to board the car. The terrified Mario obeyed and
seated himself at the back together with another policeman. Diosdada
instinctively followed suit and sat beside Mario.
EcTCAD

They cruised towards Roxas Boulevard. The driver then asked Mario why he
was carrying a "deadly weapon," to which Mario answered, "for self-defense
since he was a polio victim." The driver and another policeman who were
both seated in front grilled Mario. They frightened him by telling him that for
carrying a deadly weapon outside his residence he would be brought to the
Bicutan police station where he would be interrogated by the police, mauled
by other prisoners and heckled by the press. As they approached Ospital ng
Maynila, the mobile car pulled over and the two (2) policemen in front told
the Montecillos that the bailbond for carrying a "deadly weapon" was
P12,000.00. At this point, the driver asked how much money they had.
Without answering, Mario gave his P1,000.00 to Diosdada who placed the
money inside her wallet.

Diosdada was then made to alight from the car. She was followed by the
driver and was told to go behind the vehicle. There, the driver forced her to
take out her wallet and rummaged through its contents. He counted her
money. She had P5,000.00 in her wallet. The driver took P1,500.00 and left
her P3,500.00. He instructed her to tell his companions that all she had was
P3,500.00. While going back to the car the driver demanded from her any
piece of jewelry that could be pawned. Ruefully, she removed her wristwatch
and offered it to him. The driver declined saying, "Never mind," and
proceeded to board the car. Diosdada, still fearing for the safety of her
brother, followed and sat beside him in the car.

Once in the car, Diosdada was directed by the policeman at the front
passenger seat to place all her money on the console box near the
gearshift. The car then proceeded to Harrison Plaza where the Montecillos
were told to disembark. From there, their dreadful experience over, they
went home to Imus, Cavite.

The following day Diosdada recounted her harrowing story to her employer
Manuel Felix who readily accompanied her and her brother Mario to the
office of General Diokno where they lodged their complaint. Gen. Diokno
directed one of his men, a certain Lt. Ronas, to assist the complainants in
looking for the erring policemen. They boarded the police patrol car and
scoured the Mabini area for the culprits. They did not find them.

When they returned to the police station, a line-up of policemen was

immediately assembled. Diosdada readily recognized one of them as the
policeman who was seated beside them in the back of the car. She trembled
at the sight of him. She then rushed to Lt. Ronas and told him that she saw
 the policeman who sat beside them in the car. He was identified by Lt. Ronas
as PO2 Ricardo Fortuna. A few minutes later, Gen. Diokno summoned the
complainants. As they approached the General, they at once saw PO2
Eduardo Garcia whom they recognized as the policeman who frisked Mario.
The following day, they met the last of their tormentors, the driver of the
mobile car who played heavily on their nerves — PO3 Ramon Pablo. 6

After hearing both parties, the trial court found the three (3) policemen guilty of the
crime charged. The dispositive portion of its decision reads:

WHEREFORE, and in view of all the foregoing considerations, the accused

Ramon Pablo y Bacungan, Eduardo Garcia y Paderanga and Ricardo Fortuna
y Gragasin, are hereby found guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of
simple robbery, defined and penalized under paragraph 5, Article 294 of the
Revised Penal Code, as amended, and hereby sentences all of them to suffer
the penalty of imprisonment of SIX (6) YEARS and ONE (1) DAY to TEN (10)
YEARS of prision mayor, to jointly and severally restitute the sum of
P5,000.00 to Diosdada Montecillo, which was the amount extorted from her,
the sum of P20,000.00 as moral damages and the further sum of
P15,000.00, for and as attorney's fees.

SO ORDERED. 7

From the said decision, the three accused separately appealed to the Court of
Appeals. On March 31, 1997, the appellate court affirmed the trial court's verdict.
Herein petitioner and Ricardo Fortuna filed separate motions for reconsideration on
April 28, 1997 and January 19, 1998, respectively. Both motions were denied for
lack of merit.ACaEcH

Fortuna filed a petition for review on certiorari, which we denied in our decision
dated December 15, 2000, to wit:

WHEREFORE, the Decision of the Court of Appeals which affirmed that of

the trial court finding accused-appellant Ricardo Fortuna guilty of robbery
and ordering him to pay complaining witnesses Diosdada Montecillo and
Mario Montecillo P5,000.00 representing the money taken from them,
P20,000.00 for moral damages and P15,000.00 for attorney's fees, is
AFFIRMED with the modification that accused-appellant Ricardo Fortuna is
SENTENCED to the indeterminate prison term of two (2) years four (4)
months and twenty (20) days of the medium period of arresto mayor
maximum to prision correccional medium, as minimum, to eight (8) years
two (2) months and ten (10) days of the maximum period of prision
correccional maximum to prision mayor medium, as maximum.

Costs against accused-appellant Ricardo Fortuna.

SO ORDERED. 8

In the petition now before us, petitioner Ramon Pablo y Bacungan raises the
following errors:
 I.

THE COURT OF APPEALS PALPABLY ERRED, ON A MATTER OF LAW, IN

AFFIRMING PETITIONER'S CONVICTION FOR THE CRIME OF SIMPLE
ROBBERY UNDER ARTICLE 294 OF THE REVISED PENAL CODE, EVEN AS
THE EVIDENCE SO FAR ADDUCED BY THE PROSECUTION CLEARLY
ESTABLISHED AND PROVED THE CRIME OF BRIBERY UNDER ARTICLE 210
OF THE SAME CODE.

II.

THE COURT OF APPEALS LIKEWISE PALPABLY ERRED, IN AFFIRMING THE

TRIAL COURT'S DECISION EVEN AS THE SAID TRIAL COURT CLEARLY
MISAPPRECIATED THE EVIDENCE PROFERRED. 9

Petitioner contends that the transaction between petitioner and private

complainants was mutual and voluntary, thus negating the use of force or
intimidation essential in the crime of robbery. Petitioner alleges that Diosdada
voluntarily followed his apprehended brother to the mobile patrol car for the
purpose of bribing the police officers.

Petitioner further argues that robbery may only be considered if the person arrested
has not committed a crime and insists that in this case, Mario was apprehended for
illegal possession of a deadly weapon.

For the respondent, the Solicitor General counters that there was intimidation on
the part of petitioner and his co-accused when they falsely imputed on Mario the
commission of the crime of illegal possession of a deadly weapon when all that the
latter possessed was a pointed belt buckle. Mario was scared into believing that he
would be brought to Bicutan to be investigated and mauled in the presence of the
media. Further, he was told that he would be jailed and would need the services of a
lawyer. The Solicitor General maintains that all these threats and acts of
intimidation by petitioner and his co-accused forced private complainants to part
with their money.

After a careful study of the records of this case, we find the present petition bereft of
merit.ADECcI

In Fortuna v. People, which involves identical facts, we said:

We are convinced that there was indeed sufficient intimidation applied on the
offended parties as the acts performed by the three (3) accused, coupled
with the circumstances under which they were executed, engendered fear in
the minds of their victims and hindered the free exercise of their will. The
three (3) accused succeeded in coercing them to choose between two (2)
alternatives, to wit: to part with their money or suffer the burden and
humiliation of being taken to the police station.

To our mind, the success of the accused in taking their victims' money was
 premised on threats of prosecution and arrest. This intense infusion of fear
was intimidation, plain and simple. 10

We see no reason now to depart from our ruling in Fortuna, except to stress again
what we said therein:

We however observe that the courts below failed to appreciate the

aggravating circumstance of "abuse of public position." The mere fact that
the three (3) accused were all police officers at the time of the robbery
placed them in a position to perpetrate the offense. If they were not police
officers they could not have terrified the Montecillos into boarding the mobile
patrol car and forced them to hand over their money. Precisely it was on
account of their authority that the Montecillos believed that Mario had in fact
committed a crime and would be brought to the police station for
investigation unless they gave them what they demanded. 11

Thus, consistent with our decision in Fortuna, the penalty imposed by the trial court
should also be modified. Article 294, paragraph (5) of the Revised Penal Code fixes
the penalty for simple robbery at prision correccional in its maximum period to
prision mayor in its medium period. Considering the aggravating circumstance of
abuse of public position, the penalty should be imposed in its maximum period
while the minimum shall be taken from the penalty next lower in degree, which is
arresto mayor maximum to prision correccional medium in any of its periods, the
range of which is four (4) months and one (1) day to four (4) years and two (2)
months.

WHEREFORE, the Decision dated March 31, 1997 of the Court of Appeals, sustaining
the trial court's judgment is hereby AFFIRMED with MODIFICATION. Petitioner
Ramon Pablo y Bacungan is DECLARED GUILTY of Robbery aggravated by abuse of
public position. He is hereby SENTENCED to the indeterminate prison term of two
(2) years, four (4) months and twenty (20) days of the medium period of arresto
mayor maximum to prision correccional medium, as minimum, to eight (8) years,
two (2) months and ten (10) days of the maximum period of prision correccional
maximum to prision mayor medium, as maximum. He is also ORDERED TO PAY
private complainants Diosdada and Mario Montecillo the amount of P5,000.00 by
way of restitution for the money taken from them; P20,000.00 as moral damages;
and P15,000.00 as attorney's fees.

Costs against petitioner.

SO ORDERED.

Davide, Jr., C.J., Ynares-Santiago, Carpio and Azcuna, JJ., concur.

Footnotes

1. Rollo, pp. 30-43. Penned by Associate Justice Antonio M. Martinez, with Associate
Justices Eduardo G. Montenegro, and Salvador J. Valdez, Jr. concurring.

2. Id. at 44.
3. Records, pp. 174-179.

4. Id. at 1.

5. G.R. No. 135784, 15 December 2000, 348 SCRA 360.

6. Id. at 361-363.

7. Records, p. 179.

8. Supra, note 5 at 366.

9. Rollo, pp. 15-16.

10. Supra, note 5 at 364.

11. Id. at 365-366.