G.R. No. 150873 . February 10, 2009.
ZENAIDA V. SAZON, Petitioner, vs. SANDIGANBAYAN (Fourth Division), Respondent.

FACTS

Petitioner Zenaida V. Sazon, a Senior Forest Management Specialist of the DENR-NCR, was tasked to investigate an illegal shipment of poles and piles and verify an illegal resaw operation. On September 25, 1992, her team chanced upon squared logs at the R&R Shipyard compound, which they claimed were banned “dungon” logs. The team asked for pertinent documents, which the Operations Manager, Mr. Rodrigo Opena, could not produce. On October 1, 1992, the team returned, and Mr. Opena again failed to produce the documents, claiming they were “yakal” and “tangile” logs. Petitioner threatened arrest and confiscation. On October 7, 1992, Atty. Teresita Agbi, R&R’s lawyer, met with petitioner, who demanded payment of ₱300,000 if no papers were submitted, ₱200,000 if incomplete, and ₱100,000 if complete. On October 13, 1992, petitioner made a final demand of ₱100,000 in exchange for “fixing” the papers, offering Atty. Agbi a ₱25,000 share. Atty. Agbi reported this to the police, leading to an entrapment operation on October 14, 1992, at Max’s Restaurant in Caloocan City. Atty. Agbi handed an envelope containing ₱100,000 to petitioner, who placed her wallet and handkerchief inside it. Petitioner was then accosted by police officers. Petitioner denied the accusation, claiming it was Atty. Agbi who proposed the settlement, which she rejected, and that she was handcuffed when she stood up to leave after being offered the envelope. An Information for Robbery Extortion was filed against her. The Sandiganbayan found her guilty beyond reasonable doubt.

ISSUE

Whether the Sandiganbayan erred in finding petitioner guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of Robbery Extortion.

RULING

The Supreme Court denied the petition and affirmed the Sandiganbayan’s decision. The Court held that only questions of law may be raised in appeals from the Sandiganbayan, and its factual findings are binding unless exceptions apply, none of which were present. The elements of robbery under Article 293 of the Revised Penal Code were established: (1) personal property belonging to another (₱100,000 from R&R); (2) unlawful taking; (3) intent to gain; and (4) violence against or intimidation of persons. Intimidation was present as petitioner, a public officer with authority to confiscate logs and initiate criminal proceedings, threatened confiscation and arrest to induce payment. The taking was complete when petitioner received and possessed the envelope. The Court found the prosecution’s evidence, including the entrapment operation, credible and sufficient to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt.