Fortuna V. People.docx

Case Number 11 Fortuna v. People (Janine) G.R. No. 135784 15 Dec. 2000 | Bellosillo, J. | Aggravating circumstance; abuse of public position PETITIONER: Ricardo Fortuna RESPONDENTS: People of the Philippines DOCTRINE: The mere fact that the three accused were police officers at the time of the robbery placed them in the position to perpetrate the offense. If they were not police officers, the Montecillos would not have been terrified on boarding the patrol car and hand them their money. Precisely on account of their authority that the Montecillo’s believed that Mario committed a crime and would be brought to the police station for investiagation unless they gave them money. FACTS: 1. Diosdada and her brother Mario Montecillo was waiting for a ride home when suddenly a mobile patrol stopped in front of them. The policeman seated in the front right seated alighted and without a word frisked Mario. He took Mario’s belt and pointed to the supposed blunt object and uttered “evidence”. He then mentioned to Mario to board the car. Mario being terrified obeyed and seated himself at the back with another policeman. Diosdada instinctively followed suit and sat beside Mario. 2. The driver asked Mario why he was carrying a “deadly weapon”. Mario answered that its for self-defense. They frightened Mario that for carrying a deadly weapon he will be brought to Bicutan police station where he would be interrogated by the police, mauled by prisoners and heckled by the press. The policeman told the Montecillo’s that the bailbond for carrying a deadly weapon would be Php 12,000.00. At this point the driver asked them how much money they had. 3. Diosdada was then made to alight the car. The driver followed her and forced her to take out her wallet. He counted her money which amounts to Php 5,000.00. He took the Php 1,500 and instructed Diosdada to tell his companions that she only had Php 3,500.00. 4. Once in the car the policeman directed her to put her money in the console box. The car then proceed to Harrison Plaza and unload Diosdada and her brother Mario. 5. The following day, Diosdada recounted her harrowing story to her employer who accompanied her to the office of the then General Diokno where they lodged their complaint. General Diokno directed one of his policemen to look for the erring policemen. A line up of policemen was assembled and Diosdada recognized them.

6. 7.

Trial court: found them guilty of having conspired to commit robbery with intimidation of persons. This was affirmed by the appellate court. Fortuna moved for reconsideration before the appellate court but was denied. Before the SC, he contends that the trial and appellate court erred in their decision that he took part in the conspiracy. He argued that the evidenced presented by the prosecution did not support the theory of conspiracy against him.

ISSUE: WON the aggravating circumstance under Art. 14, par. 1 or the “abuse of public position” should be appreciated. – YES. HELD: 1. There was sufficient intimidation applied on the offended parties. The acts performed by the three (3) accused engendered fear in the minds of their victims and hindered free exercise of their will. They succeeded in coercing them to choose between having to part with their money or suffer the burden and humiliation of being taken to the police station. 2. Fortuna is guilty for conspiring with the other policemen. Court: “As a police officer, it is his primary duty to avert by all means the commission of an offense. As such, he should not have kept his silence but, instead, should have protected the Montecillos from his mulcting colleagues. This accused-appellant failed to do. His silence then could only be viewed as a form of moral support which he zealously lent to his co-conspirators.” 3. Trial court erred in not appreciating the aggravating circumstance of “abuse of public position”. The mere fact that the three accused were police officers at the time of the robbery placed them in the position to perpetrate the offense. If they were not police officers, the Montecillos would not have been terrified on boarding the patrol car and hand them their money. Precisely on account of their authority that the Montecillo’s believed that Mario committed a crime and would be brought to the police station for investigation unless they gave them money. DISPOSITIVE PORTION: WHEREFORE, the Decision of the Court of Appeals which affirmed that of the trial court finding accused-appellant Ricardo Fortuna guilty of robbery and ordering him to pay complaining witnesses Diosdada Montecillo and Mario Montecillo P5,000.00 representing the money taken from them, P20,000.00 for moral damages and P15,000.00 for attorney's fees, is AFFIRMED with the modification that accused-appellant Ricardo Fortuna is SENTENCED to the indeterminate prison term of two (2) years four (4) months and twenty (20) days of the medium period of arresto mayor maximum to prision correccional medium, as minimum, to eight (8) years two (2) months and ten (10) days of

the maximum period of prision correccional maximum to prision mayor medium, as maximum. Costs against accused-appellant Ricardo Fortuna. SO ORDERED.