GR 135784; (December, 2000) (Digest)
G.R. No. 135784; December 15, 2000
RICARDO FORTUNA Y GRAGASIN, petitioner, vs. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, respondent.
FACTS
On July 21, 1992, siblings Diosdada and Mario Montecillo were accosted by policemen in a mobile patrol car in Manila. Mario was frisked, and the officers claimed the buckle of his belt was a “deadly weapon.” The Montecillos were forced into the patrol car, where the officers threatened to take Mario to the Bicutan police station for interrogation and possible mauling. The car stopped near Ospital ng Maynila, where the officers demanded a ₱12,000.00 bail bond. When asked for money, Diosdada revealed she had ₱5,000.00. The driver, PO3 Ramon Pablo, took ₱1,500.00 from her and instructed her to tell the others she only had ₱3,500.00. The siblings were later dropped off at Harrison Plaza. The following day, they reported the incident, leading to the identification and subsequent charging of PO3 Pablo, PO2 Eduardo Garcia, and petitioner PO2 Ricardo Fortuna with robbery.
ISSUE
The primary issue is whether the Court of Appeals erred in affirming petitioner Ricardo Fortuna’s conviction for robbery, specifically in finding that conspiracy existed and that the taking of money was accomplished through intimidation.
RULING
The Supreme Court affirmed the conviction but modified the penalty. The Court held that the factual findings of the trial and appellate courts, which established the elements of robbery through intimidation and the existence of conspiracy, are generally binding in a Rule 45 petition. The evidence showed that the acts of the three accused policemen—forcibly taking the Montecillos, threatening them with detention and harm, and demanding and taking money—were concerted actions sufficient to prove conspiracy. Their collective conduct created a reasonable fear in the victims, compelling them to part with their money to avoid a worse alternative, thus satisfying the element of intimidation.
However, the Court modified the penalty by appreciating the generic aggravating circumstance of “abuse of public position” under Article 14(1) of the Revised Penal Code. The accused exploited their authority as police officers to instill fear and facilitate the crime. Applying the Indeterminate Sentence Law, the penalty was adjusted. The Supreme Court affirmed the awards of restitution for ₱5,000.00, moral damages of ₱20,000.00, and attorney’s fees of ₱15,000.00. Petitioner Fortuna was sentenced to an indeterminate penalty of two years, four months, and twenty days of arresto mayor maximum to prision correccional medium, as minimum, to eight years, two months, and ten days of prision correccional maximum to prision mayor medium, as maximum.