“Law enforcement officers who abuse their authority to intimidate persons under their custody for money are guilty of robbery by extortion.”
This was emphasized by the Supreme Court’s Second Division in a Decision penned by Senior Associate Justice Marvic M.V.F. Leonen, as it denied the consolidated petitions for review on certiorari filed by PO2 Ireneo M. Sosas, Jr. (PO2 Sosas) and SPO3 Ariel D. Salvador (SPO3 Salvador). The petitions challenged the rulings of the Court of Appeals (CA) which had affirmed the Regional Trial Court’s (RTC) convictions of PO2 Sosas and SPO3 Salvador for robbery.
An Information for robbery against PO2 Sosas and SPO3 Salvador was filed by the Office of the Deputy Ombudsman for the Military and Other Law Enforcement Offices following a complaint from Janith Arbuez (Arbuez).
Arbuez, a salesperson at a used cellphone shop at Isetann Mall, alleged that PO2 Sosas escorted her from the cellphone shop to the mall’s administrative office to report her sale of stolen items. PO2 Sosa then brought her to the police station where she was led to a room with SPO3 Salvador. PO2 Sosas then proposed that no criminal complaint for violation of the Anti-Fencing Law would be charged against Arbuez if she would give the officers PhP20,000.
When Arbuez negotiated for a lower amount, PO2 Sosas agreed on the condition they become “sweethearts.” Arbuez refused and called her sister-in-law to bring the money to the station. After 18 hours in detention, Arbuez was released the next day following PO2 Sosas’ receipt of the money. PO2 Sosas also stated that a complaint will no longer be filed against Arbuez.
The RTC found PO2 Sosas and SPO3 Salvador guilty of robbery under Article 293 of the Revised Penal Code. This was affirmed by the Court of Appeals, prompting the present petitions.
In denying the petitions, the Court held that the following elements must be proved for a conviction of robbery by extortion: (1) there is personal property belonging to another; (2) there is unlawful taking of that property; (3) the taking is with intent to gain; and (4) there is violence against or intimidation of persons.
In the present case, the Court found that all elements were established by the prosecution beyond reasonable doubt.
The amount of PhP20,000 which belonged to Arbuez as loan payment by her sister-in-law, was taken by PO2 Sosas with clear intent to gain as he had no authority to demand and take Arbuez’s money. There was also intimidation when PO2 Sosas implied that a criminal complaint would be filed if Arbuez did not come up with the money.
The Court added that the duty of PO2 Sosas was to report the incident to the inquest prosecutor, and not decide whether to file a criminal complaint.
As for SPO3 Salvador’s involvement, the Court found that the existence of conspiracy was proved, as evident from the agreement between the police officers to extort money from Arbuez.
The Court further held that as police officers, PO2 Sosas and SPO3 Salvador are tasked to “implement the law. Hence, they could not demand and eventually receive any amount from private persons as a consideration for them not to pursue the case against them. Under such circumstances, the eventual receipt of the money by [PO2 Sosas and SPO3 Salvador] makes the taking unlawful.”
The Court concluded by stressing that PO2 Sosas and SPO3 Salvador occupy a position of authority. “They are law enforcement agents while Arbuez is an ordinary citizen. The incident transpired at the police station when Arbuez was already placed under their custody. Given these circumstances, the threats of continued deprivation of liberty, and the possibility of criminal prosecution, it is easy to conclude that [PO2 Sosas and SPO3 Salvador] intimidated Arbuez into giving them the money. They are, therefore, guilty of robbery.”
The police officers were sentenced to imprisonment of three years, six months, and 20 days to eight years, eight months, and one day. They were also ordered to pay Arbuez PhP20,000 as actual damages, with legal interest of 12% per annum from November 9, 2010 until June 30, 2013, and 6% interest per annum from July 1, 2013 until fully paid. (Courtesy of the Supreme Court Public Information Office)
Full text of G.R. Nos. 249283 and 249400 (Sosas, Jr. v. People; Salvador v. People, April 26, 2023) at: https://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/249283-249000-po2-ireneo-m-sosas-jr-vs-people-of-the-philippines-spo3-ariel-d-salvador-vs-people-of-the-philippines/