THIRD DIVISION
|
ZENAIDA
V. SAZON, Petitioner, - versus - SANDIGANBAYAN (Fourth
Division), Respondent. |
G.R.
No. 150873
Present: YNARES-SANTIAGO, J.,
Chairperson, AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, CHICO-NAZARIO, NACHURA, and PERALTA, JJ. Promulgated: February
10, 2009 |
x------------------------------------------------------------------------------------x
DECISION
NACHURA, J.:
Before
this Court is a Petition for Review on Certiorari
under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court seeking to nullify the Decision[1] of
the Sandiganbayan, dated July 26, 2001, in Criminal Case No. 18257, finding the
petitioner Zenaida V. Sazon guilty beyond reasonable doubt of Robbery Extortion.[2] Likewise assailed is the Sandiganbayan’s
Resolution[3]
dated
The
facts, as established by the evidence presented, are as follows:
Petitioner
was a Senior Forest Management Specialist of the Department of Environment and
Natural Resources (DENR), National Capital Region (NCR).[4] On September 24, 1992, the DENR-NCR issued Travel
Order No. 09-92-409 directing the petitioner and a certain Carlos Gubat I
(Gubat) to proceed to Karuhatan and Navotas, both in Metro Manila, to perform
the following:
1. To investigate [an] intelligence report on the alleged arrival of illegal shipment of poles and piles to Navotas, Metro Manila; and
2. [To] verify illegal resaw operation of Honway Lumber, Karuhatan, Metro Manila.[5]
On September 25, 1992, petitioner and
her team, composed of Gubat and Forester Nemesio Ricohermoso, conducted a
surveillance in Karuhatan and Navotas.
While looking for the office of Vifel Shipyard, subject of the travel
order, the team chanced upon the R&R Shipyard (R&R) and asked from the
lady guard for Mr. Rodrigo Opena (Mr. Opena), the Operations Manager.[6] As the petitioner knew Mr. Opena, the former
wanted to inquire from the latter where Vifel Shipyard was.[7] In the course of their conversation with the
lady guard, the team spotted squared logs, which they claimed to be “dungon”
logs piled at the R&R compound. Upon
a closer look, the team noticed that the squared logs were mill-sawn and bore
hatchet marks with a number indicating inspection by the DENR. Since “dungon”
logs were banned species, the team asked for the pertinent documents relative
thereto. However, the same could not be
produced at that time; hence, they decided to return on October 1.[8]
On
On P300,000.00 if no papers would be submitted; P200,000.00
if incomplete; and P100,000.00 if the papers were complete.[12]
On P100,000.00 in exchange for the favor of “fixing” the papers
of the alleged “hot logs.” She even offered
Atty. Agbi P25,000.00 as her share in the amount.[13] Atty. Agbi reported the matter to the
police. Consequently, an entrapment
operation against the petitioner was planned wherein Atty. Agbi would agree to
pay P100,000.00 to settle the issue with the petitioner.[14]
On P25,000.00 commission had not yet been segregated from
the P100,000.00. Petitioner thus
offered to segregate it at the ladies’ room.[16] As soon as Atty. Agbi handed over the
envelope containing the money, petitioner placed her wallet and handkerchief
inside the envelope;[17]
then SPO2 Dizon immediately accosted and handcuffed the petitioner while SPO1
Temena took pictures of the incident.[18]
Petitioner,
for her part, denied the above accusation.
She averred that it was in fact Atty. Agbi who proposed the settlement
which she, however, rejected. When
offered a brown envelope containing money, petitioner allegedly stood up and
prepared to leave, but a man came from nowhere and immediately handcuffed her
while another man took pictures.[19]
At
about 11 o’clock in the evening, petitioner was brought to the assistant
prosecutor for inquest.[20]
Thereafter, an Information for Robbery Extortion was filed against the
petitioner, the accusatory portion of which reads:
That on or about October 14, 1992,
in Kalookan City, Metro Manila and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable
Court, the above-named accused, a public officer, being then the supervisor of
the Department of Environment and Natural Resources (D[E]NR), taking advantage
of her public position and which offensed (sic) was committed in relation to
her office, by means of intimidation and with intent to gain, did then and
there willfully, unlawfully and
feloniously demand, take and extort from the IRMA FISHING & TRADING COMPANY
as represented herein by ATTY. TERESITA A. AGBI, the amount of P100,000.00
to prevent the confiscation of more or less thirty (30) pcs. of logs, which are
found in the compound of RNR Marine Inc., purportedly for unauthorize[d]
possession of the said logs, and belonging to the said Irma Fishing &
Trading Company, to the damage and prejudice of the said owner in the
aforementioned amount of P100,000.00.
CONTRARY TO LAW.[21]
Upon
arraignment, petitioner entered a plea of “Not Guilty.”[22]
After
trial on the merits, the Sandiganbayan rendered a Decision[23]
convicting the petitioner of the crime of robbery extortion. The dispositive portion of the assailed
decision is quoted hereunder:
WHEREFORE, the accused, ZENAIDA SAZON y VENTURA, is hereby found GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of ROBBERY EXTORTION, defined under Article 293, and penalized under paragraph 5, Article 294 (as amended by Section 9, Republic Act No. 7659) both of the Revised Penal Code, and, there being no aggravating or mitigating circumstance that attended the commission of the crime, she is hereby sentenced, under the Indeterminate Sentence Law, to suffer the penalty of imprisonment of from Two (2) Years and Three (3) Months of prision correccional, as minimum, to Seven (7) Years of prision mayor, as maximum, and to pay the costs.
SO ORDERED.[24]
The court found that the elements of
robbery with intimidation were established by the prosecution.[25] It was pointed out that if the interest of
petitioner was merely the submission by R&R of the required documents, she
should have required that they meet at her office and not at a restaurant.[26] Her liability, said the court, was not
negated by the eventual admission of Irma Fishing and Trading Co. that the
required documents could not be produced.[27]
Hence, the instant petition on the
following grounds:
I. WITH DUE RESPECT, THE
II.
WITH DUE RESPECT, THE
Apart
from the instant criminal case, the DENR filed an administrative complaint
against the petitioner for grave misconduct in the performance of official duty,
but the same was dismissed for lack of interest on the part of the
complainant. Another administrative case
was filed before the Office of the Ombudsman, but the same was likewise
dismissed.[29]
Petitioner’s insistence on her
acquittal of the crime of robbery with intimidation hinges on the alleged
absence of the elements of the crime.
She specifically questions the Sandiganbayan’s conclusion that she
employed intimidation in order to extort P100,000.00 from R&R. Petitioner strongly doubts that the threat of
confiscation of the subject logs created fear in the mind of R&R or its
employees. Absent such element, says the
petitioner, her exoneration is clearly indicated.[30]
We
do not agree with the petitioner.
In appeals to this Court from the
Sandiganbayan, only questions of law may be raised, not issues of fact. The factual findings of the Sandiganbayan are
binding upon this Court.[31] The Supreme Court should not be burdened with
the task of re-examining the evidence presented during the trial of the
case. This rule, however, admits of
exceptions, to wit: 1) when the conclusion is a finding grounded entirely on
speculation, surmise or conjectures; 2) the inference made is manifestly
mistaken; 3) there is grave abuse of discretion on the part of the lower court
or agency; 4) the judgment is based on a misapprehension of facts; 5) said
findings of fact are conclusions without citation of specific evidence on which
they are based; and 6) the findings of fact of the Sandiganbayan are premised
on an absence of evidence on record.[32] However,
we find no reason to disturb the factual findings of the Sandiganbayan, as none
of these exceptions is present in this case.
Petitioner
was charged with robbery defined and penalized under Articles 293[33] and
294(5)[34]
of the Revised Penal Code (RPC), otherwise known as simple robbery. Simple robbery is committed by means of
violence against or intimidation of persons.[35] The elements of robbery as defined in Article
293 of the RPC are the following: a) that there is personal property belonging
to another; b) that there is unlawful taking of that property; c) that the
taking is with intent to gain; and d) that there is violence against or
intimidation of persons or force upon things.[36]
Indeed,
the prosecution adequately established the above elements.
As
to what was taken, it is undisputed that petitioner demanded and eventually
received from R&R P100,000.00, a personal
property belonging to the latter. The amount was placed inside a brown
envelope and was given to petitioner while inside Max’s Restaurant in EDSA,
As
to how the money was taken, it was proven that P100,000.00 was unlawfully taken by the petitioner from
R&R, with intent to gain and
through intimidation. In robbery, there must be an unlawful taking
or apoderamiento, which is defined as
the taking of items without the consent of the owner, or by means of violence
against or intimidation of persons, or by using force upon things.[37]
Taking is considered complete from the moment the offender gains possession of
the thing, even if he has no opportunity to dispose of the same. In the instant case, it was adequately proven
that petitioner received and took possession of the brown envelope containing
the money; she even placed her wallet and handkerchief inside the
envelope. At that point, there was
already “taking.”
As
a public officer employed with the DENR, petitioner was tasked to implement
forestry laws, rules and regulations.
Specifically, she had the power to make reports on forestry violations
which could result in the eventual confiscation of logs if the possession thereof
could not be justified by the required documents; and the prosecution of
violators thereof. Undoubtedly, petitioner could not demand and eventually
receive any amount from private persons as a consideration for the former’s
non-performance of her lawful task. More so, in the instant case where the
petitioner threatened the complainants with possible confiscation of the logs and
prosecution if they would not accede to her demand for P100,000.00. Under such circumstances, the eventual receipt
of the said amount by the petitioner makes the taking “unlawful.”
To
constitute robbery, the taking should be accompanied by intent to gain. Intent to gain, or animus lucrandi, as an element of the crime of robbery, is an
internal act; hence, presumed from the unlawful taking of things.[38]
Actual gain is irrelevant as the important consideration is the intent to gain.[39] Having established that the amount of P100,000.00
was unlawfully taken by the petitioner from R&R for her personal benefit,
intent to gain was likewise proven.
Lastly,
we agree with the Sandiganbayan that petitioner employed intimidation in order
to obtain the amount of P100,000.00 from R&R.
Intimidation is defined in Black’s
Law Dictionary as unlawful coercion; extortion; duress; putting in fear.[40] In robbery with intimidation of persons, the
intimidation consists in causing or creating
fear in the mind of a person or in bringing in a sense of mental
distress in view of a risk or evil that may be impending, real or imagined. Such fear of injury to person or property
must continue to operate in the mind of the victim at the time of the delivery
of the money.[41]
Applying
this principle to the pertinent facts of the instant case, it is noteworthy
that: On September 25, 1992, petitioner discovered the questioned logs and
asked that the supporting documents be shown; on October 1, she formally
demanded the submission of the required documents; on October 7, she demanded
payment of a particular sum of money while offering to “fix” the problem; on
October 13, she made the final demand; and on October 14, the representatives
of R&R parted with their P100,000.00. While it appears that
initially, petitioner only demanded the submission of the supporting documents
to show that R&R’s possession of the subject logs was legal, she agreed to
talk about the matter outside her office.
This circumstance alone makes her intentions highly suspect. The same was confirmed when petitioner
eventually demanded from R&R the payment of a particular sum of money,
accompanied by threats of prosecution and confiscation of the logs.
From
the foregoing, and in light of the concept of intimidation as defined in
various jurisprudence, we find and so hold that the P100,000.00 “grease
money” was taken by the petitioner from R&R’s representatives through
intimidation. By using her position as
Senior Management Specialist of the DENR, petitioner succeeded in coercing the
complainants to choose between two alternatives: to part with their money, or
suffer the burden and humiliation of prosecution and confiscation of the logs.
Indeed,
this Court had, in a number of cases involving substantially the same factual milieu
as in the present case, convicted the accused of the crime of robbery with
intimidation. These include the early
cases of People v. Francisco[42]
and United States v. Sanchez,[43]
and the more recent cases of Fortuna v.
People[44] and Pablo
v. People.[45]
In
People v. Francisco, the accused, who
was then a sanitary inspector in the Philippine Health Service, discovered
during an inspection of the merchandise in Sy Ham’s store that the lard was
unfit for consumption. He then demanded
from Sy Ham the payment of P2.00 with threats of prosecution and
arrest. For fear of being arrested,
prosecuted, and convicted, Sy Ham immediately paid the amount demanded.
In
P500.00,
accompanied by threats to take him before the proper authorities and have him
prosecuted. For fear of being sent to
prison for a long term, the Chinese paid a negotiated amount of P150.00
In
Fortuna v. People and Pablo v. People, three policemen frisked
Diosdada and Mario Montecillo, and accused the latter of illegal possession of
a deadly weapon. The policemen
threatened Mario that he would be brought to the police station where he would
be interrogated by the police, mauled by other prisoners and heckled by the
press. The apprehending policemen took
from Mario P1,000.00. They
likewise rummaged Diosdada’s bag where they found and eventually pocketed P5,000.00. They further demanded from Diosdada any piece
of jewelry that could be pawned.
Thereafter, the two were released by the policemen.
In
all of the above cases, the Court was convinced that there was sufficient
intimidation applied by the accused on the offended parties inasmuch as the
acts of the accused engendered fear in the minds of their victims and hindered
the free exercise of their will.
As
in the aforesaid cases, petitioner herein was a public officer who, in the
performance of her official task, discovered the subject logs which she claimed
to be banned species. By reason of said discovery, she had the power to bring
the offenders to the proper authorities.
As such public officer, she abused her authority and demanded from the
offenders the payment of a particular sum of money, accompanied by an assurance
that the latter would no longer be prosecuted.
Eventually, money was given to the petitioner. We, therefore, find no
reason to depart from the above conclusion.
We
would like to stress that the Constitution guarantees that in all criminal
prosecutions, the accused shall be presumed innocent until the contrary is
proved. This means proving the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt.
Reasonable doubt is present when, after the comparison and consideration of all
the evidence adduced, the minds of the judges are left in a condition that they
cannot say they feel an abiding conviction, a moral certainty, of the truth of
the charge, a certainty that convinces and directs the understanding, and
satisfies the reason and judgment of those who are bound to act conscientiously
upon it.[46] To be
sure, proof beyond reasonable doubt does not demand absolute certainty and the
exclusion of all possibility of error.[47]
We
find, however, that the Sandiganbayan failed to appreciate the aggravating
circumstance of “abuse of public position.”[48]
The fact that petitioner was Senior Forest Management Specialist of the DENR situated
her in a position to perpetrate the offense.
It was on account of petitioner’s authority that the complainants
believed that they could be prosecuted and the subject logs confiscated unless
they gave her what she wanted.
Consequently, we find that a modification of the penalty imposed by the
Sandiganbayan is in order.
Article
294(5) of the RPC fixes the penalty for simple robbery at prision correccional in its maximum period to prision mayor in its medium period, the range of which is from four
(4) years, two (2) months and one (1) day to ten (10) years. Considering the aggravating circumstance of
abuse of public position, the penalty should be imposed in its maximum period;
and applying the Indeterminate Sentence Law, the same should likewise be the
maximum term of the indeterminate penalty.
The minimum term, on the other hand, 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.[49]
WHEREFORE, premises considered, the
petition is DENIED. The Decision of the Sandiganbayan, dated July
26, 2001, and its Resolution dated November 16, 2001 in Criminal Case No.
18257, are AFFIRMED WITH THE MODIFICATION that
petitioner Zenaida V. Sazon is sentenced
to the indeterminate penalty of Two (2) Years, Ten (10) Months and Twenty-One
(21) Days of prision correccional, as
minimum, to Eight (8) Years and Twenty-One (21) Days of prision mayor, as maximum.
SO ORDERED.
ANTONIO
EDUARDO B. NACHURA
Associate
Justice
WE CONCUR:
CONSUELO YNARES-SANTIAGO
Associate
Justice
Chairperson
|
MA. ALICIA
AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ Associate Justice |
MINITA V. CHICO-NAZARIO Associate Justice |
DIOSDADO M.
PERALTA
Associate Justice
A T T E S T A T I O N
I attest that the
conclusions in the above Decision were reached in consultation before the case
was assigned to the writer of the opinion of the Court’s Division.
CONSUELO
YNARES-SANTIAGO
Associate
Justice
Chairperson,
Third Division
C E R T I F I C A T I O
N
Pursuant to Section 13, Article
VIII of the Constitution and the Division Chairperson's Attestation, I certify
that the conclusions in the above Decision had been reached in consultation
before the case was assigned to the writer of the opinion of the Court’s
Division.
REYNATO
S. PUNO
Chief
Justice
[1] Penned by Associate Justice Nicodemo T. Ferrer, with Associate Justices Narciso S. Nario and Rodolfo G. Palattao, concurring; rollo, pp. 33-60.
[2] Also referred to herein as Robbery with Intimidation and Simple Robbery.
[3] Rollo, pp. 61-71.
[4]
[5]
[6] The
latter was also the Assistant Manager of Irma Fishing and Trading Company, a
sister company of R&R Shipyard.
[7] Rollo, pp. 37-38.
[8]
[9]
[10]
[11] These alleged additional requirements were as follows:
1. Certificate of Lumber Origin;
2. Certificate of Transport Agreement;
3. Auxiliary Invoice;
4. Special Permit issued by the DENR Secretary;
5. Tally Sheets; and
6. Inspection Report from the DENR Field Personnel; id. at 42.
[12] Rollo, p. 43.
[13]
[14]
[15]
[16]
[17]
[18]
[19]
[20]
[21] Records, p. 1.
[22]
[23] Supra note 1.
[24] Rollo, pp. 58-59.
[25]
[26]
[27]
[28]
[29]
[30]
[31] Baldebrin v. Sandiganbayan, G.R. Nos. 144950-71, March 22, 2007, 518 SCRA 627, 638.
[32]
[33] Art. 293. Who are guilty of robbery. – Any person who, with intent to gain, shall take any personal property belonging to another, by means of violence against or intimidation of any person, or using force upon anything, shall be guilty of robbery.
[34] Art. 294. Robbery with violence against or intimidation of persons – penalties – Any person guilty of robbery with the use of violence against or intimidation of any person shall suffer:
x x x
5. The penalty of prision correccional in its maximum period to prision mayor in its medium period in other cases.
[35] People v. Suela, 424 Phil. 196, 232 (2002).
[36] People v. Pat, 324 Phil. 723, 741-742 (1996).
[37] People v. Hernandez, G.R. No. 139697, June 15, 2004, 432 SCRA 104, 119.
[38] Id.; People v. Bustinera, G.R. No. 148233, June 8, 2004, 431 SCRA 284, 296; People v. Obillo, 411 Phil. 139, 150 (2001).
[39] People v. Bustinera, supra.
[40] People v. Alfeche, Jr., G.R. No. 102070, July 23, 1992, 211 SCRA 770, 779.
[41] Luis B. Reyes, The Revised Penal Code, Book Two, p. 642, citing People v. Marco, 12 C.A. Rep. 377.
[42] 45 Phil. 819 (1924).
[43] 26 Phil. 83 (1913).
[44] 401 Phil. 545 (2000).
[45] G.R. No. 152481, April 15, 2005, 456 SCRA 325.
[46] Fernan, Jr. v. People, G.R. No. 145927, August 24, 2007, 531 SCRA 1, 30-31, citing People v. Balacano, 391 Phil. 509 (2000).
[47] People v. Rayles, G.R. No. 169874, July 27, 2007, 528 SCRA 409, 416; Calimutan v. People, G.R. No. 152133, February 9, 2006, 482 SCRA 44, 57.
[48] Pablo v. People, supra note 45, at 331; Fortuna v. People, supra note 44, at 552.
[49] Ocampo v. People, G.R. No. 163705, July 30, 2007, 528 SCRA 547, 562-563.