ZENAIDA V. SAZON, PETITIONER, VS. SANDIGANBAYAN (FOURTH DIVISION), RESPONDENT.

Sazon versus Sandiganbayan

The Case

This is the case of Sazon versus Sandiganbayan, decided by the Supreme Court in February 2009. Zenaida Sazon, a Senior Forest Management Specialist of the Department of Environment and Natural Resources, was convicted by the Sandiganbayan of robbery extortion, also called robbery with intimidation, for demanding and receiving one hundred thousand pesos from a company whose logs she had threatened to confiscate and whose officers she had threatened to prosecute. She asked the Supreme Court to reverse her conviction, insisting that the element of intimidation was absent. The case matters because it fixes the test for intimidation in robbery, and because it reminds every public officer that authority held over citizens can itself become the instrument of extortion.

Procedural History

Sazon was charged before the Sandiganbayan, Fourth Division, with robbery extortion under the Revised Penal Code. She pleaded not guilty at arraignment, and after trial on the merits the Sandiganbayan rendered its decision in July 2001, finding her guilty beyond reasonable doubt and sentencing her under the Indeterminate Sentence Law. She moved for reconsideration, and the Sandiganbayan denied the motion in November 2001. She then went up to the Supreme Court by a petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court, raising only questions of law against the judgment of conviction and the denial of her motion. Two administrative complaints had earlier been filed against her, one with the Department of Environment and Natural Resources and one with the Office of the Ombudsman, and both were dismissed.

Facts

In September 1992, the Department of Environment and Natural Resources issued a travel order directing Sazon and her team to investigate a reported illegal shipment of poles and piles in Navotas and to verify an illegal resaw operation in Karuhatan, both in Metro Manila. While looking for a shipyard named in the order, the team came upon the compound of R and R Shipyard and spotted squared logs that appeared to be dungon, a banned species, bearing hatchet marks and inspection numbers. The operations manager, Rodrigo Opena, could not produce the supporting documents at that time, so the team agreed to return.

When the team returned in early October, the documents were still unavailable. Sazon insisted the logs were banned and threatened Opena with arrest and confiscation. On October 7, the company's lawyer, Atty. Teresita Agbi, met Sazon, who directed the meeting to a bakeshop at the ground floor of her office. There Sazon said the receipts were insufficient and demanded three hundred thousand pesos if no papers were submitted, two hundred thousand pesos if the papers were incomplete, and one hundred thousand pesos if the papers were complete. On October 13, she made a final demand of one hundred thousand pesos in exchange for fixing the papers of the alleged hot logs, and even offered Atty. Agbi twenty five thousand pesos as her share.

Atty. Agbi reported the matter to the police, and an entrapment operation was planned. On October 14, at a restaurant on Epifanio de los Santos Avenue in Caloocan City, Atty. Agbi handed over the envelope of money. Sazon placed her wallet and handkerchief inside the envelope, and the police officers immediately accosted and handcuffed her. She was brought to the prosecutor for inquest, and an information for robbery extortion was filed. Her defense was that Atty. Agbi had proposed the settlement, that she rejected it, and that she was handcuffed as she stood up to leave.

Issues

• Whether or not the Sandiganbayan erred in concluding that all the elements of the crime of robbery with intimidation were present.
• Whether or not the Sandiganbayan erred in finding the accused guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime charged.

Applicable Provisions

Article 293 of the Revised Penal Code defines robbery:

Any person who, with intent to gain, shall take any personal property belonging to another, by means of violence against or intimidation of any person, or using force upon anything, shall be guilty of robbery.

This definition supplies the four elements the Court applied to Sazon's conduct.

Article 294, paragraph 5 of the Revised Penal Code fixes the penalty for simple robbery:

The penalty of prision correccional in its maximum period to prision mayor in its medium period in other cases.

This is the penalty provision the Court used, raised to its maximum period because of the aggravating circumstance of abuse of public position.

Ruling

On the first issue, the Court held that all the elements of robbery were established. There was personal property belonging to another, the one hundred thousand pesos of the company. There was unlawful taking, because taking is complete from the moment the offender gains possession of the thing, and Sazon had received the envelope and even placed her wallet and handkerchief inside it. There was intent to gain, or animus lucrandi, which is an internal act presumed from the unlawful taking, actual gain being irrelevant. And there was intimidation. The Court defined intimidation as causing or creating fear in the mind of a person, or bringing a sense of mental distress in view of a risk or evil that may be impending, real or imagined, and held that such fear of injury to person or property must continue to operate in the mind of the victim at the time of the delivery of the money. By using her position, Sazon coerced the complainants to choose between parting with their money and suffering the burden and humiliation of prosecution and confiscation of the logs. The Court noted that she had agreed to talk outside her office, which made her intentions highly suspect, and it aligned the case with earlier rulings involving sanitary inspectors, police officers, and other public officers who extorted money under threat of prosecution.

On the second issue, the Court held that the conviction rested on proof beyond reasonable doubt, which does not demand absolute certainty and the exclusion of all possibility of error. It also held that in appeals from the Sandiganbayan only questions of law may be raised, and that the factual findings of the Sandiganbayan bind the Court absent the recognized exceptions, none of which was present. The Court did, however, correct the Sandiganbayan on one point: it failed to appreciate the aggravating circumstance of abuse of public position, since it was on account of Sazon's authority that the complainants believed they could be prosecuted and their logs confiscated. The penalty was therefore modified.

Doctrine

Robbery under Article 293 of the Revised Penal Code requires four elements: personal property belonging to another, unlawful taking of that property, taking with intent to gain, and violence against or intimidation of persons or force upon things. Taking is complete the moment the offender gains possession of the thing, even without opportunity to dispose of it. Intent to gain is presumed from the unlawful taking, and actual gain is irrelevant. Intimidation consists in creating fear in the mind of a person of a risk or evil, real or imagined, and that fear must continue to operate in the victim's mind at the time the money is delivered. When a public officer exploits the authority of her office to demand money in exchange for not performing her lawful duty, the taking is unlawful and the abuse of public position aggravates the crime, pushing the penalty under Article 294, paragraph 5 to its maximum period.

Disposition

The petition was denied, the conviction was affirmed, and Sazon was sentenced to an indeterminate penalty of two years, ten months and twenty one days of prision correccional as minimum, to eight years and twenty one days of prision mayor as maximum.

Remember This

Memorize this line: intimidation in robbery is present when the accused creates fear of an impending evil, real or imagined, and that fear still operates in the victim's mind when the money is delivered. Examiners use this case to test the elements of robbery with intimidation and the aggravating circumstance of abuse of public position by a government officer.