G.R. No. 259877 , November 13, 2023
ARTURO PERALTA Y VILLANUEVA, PETITIONER, VS. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, RESPONDENT.

FACTS

Petitioner Arturo Peralta, a sheriff, and his co-accused Larry De Guzman, a clerk of court, were charged with robbery extortion. The case stemmed from a replevin suit where PO3 Hernani Aga’s vehicle was seized. After Aga secured a court order for the car’s return, he approached Peralta. Peralta and De Guzman informed Aga they could retrieve the vehicle but demanded a PHP 5,000.00 “professional fee.” An entrapment was arranged. During the meeting on July 24, 2002, after failing to contact the custodian of the vehicle, the accused told Aga, “kami na ang bahala,” and instructed him to just give them the money. As Aga handed over marked bills and the accused placed them in their pockets, NBI agents arrested them. De Guzman tested positive for fluorescent powder; Peralta tested negative.
Peralta denied the accusation, claiming Aga had a grudge against him for implementing the writ. He asserted that after the failed meeting, he merely suggested a contempt citation against the custodian. He alleged that Aga then offered them money for taxi fare and merienda, which he refused, but Aga thrust the cash into De Guzman’s hands. He claimed armed men then suddenly arrested them, after which Aga exclaimed, “nakaganti rin ako sa inyo!”

ISSUE

Whether the Court of Appeals erred in affirming petitioner Peralta’s conviction for the crime of robbery extortion.

RULING

The Supreme Court denied the petition and affirmed the conviction. The Court found all elements of robbery extortion under Article 293 of the Revised Penal Code present: (1) the accused appropriated personal property; (2) the appropriation was with intent to gain; (3) it was done without the owner’s consent; and (4) it was accomplished by means of intimidation. The demand for money in exchange for the performance of an official duty—the return of the vehicle—constituted the intimidation. The fact that the marked money was physically handed over and received by the accused completed the act of appropriation.
The Court rejected Peralta’s defense and upheld the findings of the trial court, which found the testimony of PO3 Aga credible and consistent. The negative fluorescent powder test on Peralta did not exonerate him. Conspiracy was sufficiently established by their concerted actions before and during the entrapment. Their prior agreement and unity of purpose in demanding money from Aga for the performance of an official act made them equally liable. The Court also noted that the aggravating circumstance of taking advantage of public position was correctly applied, warranting the penalty in its maximum period. However, applying the Indeterminate Sentence Law, the penalty was reduced to an indeterminate sentence of two years, four months, and one day of prision correccional, as minimum, to eight years and one day of prision mayor, as maximum.