Case Number 11
Trial court: found them guilty of having conspired to commit robbery with
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.
intimidation of persons. This was affirmed by the appellate court.
7. 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.