View full case

ZENAIDA V. SAZON v. SANDIGANBAYAN

FACTS:

The petitioner, Zenaida V. Sazon, a Senior Forest Management Specialist of the Department of Environment and Natural Resources (DENR), National Capital Region (NCR), was tasked to investigate an intelligence report on the alleged arrival of illegal shipment of poles and piles to Navotas, Metro Manila, and verify illegal resaw operation of Honway Lumber, Karuhatan, Metro Manila. During the investigation, the petitioner and her team chanced upon R&R Shipyard (R&R) where they noticed squared logs claimed to be "dungon" logs. Mr. Opena, the Operations Manager, later claimed that the logs were "yakal" and "tangile" and not "dungon."

Subsequently, Atty. Teresita Agbi, the lawyer of R&R, met with the petitioner to discuss the subject logs. Petitioner demanded a payment of P300,000.00 if no papers were submitted, P200,000.00 if incomplete, and P100,000.00 if complete. On October 13, 1992, petitioner made a final demand of P100,000.00 in exchange for "fixing" the papers of the alleged "hot logs." An entrapment operation was planned, and on October 14, 1992, petitioner was caught red-handed as she placed her wallet and handkerchief inside an envelope containing the money she received from Atty. Agbi during the operation. Petitioner denied the accusations and claimed that it was Atty. Agbi who proposed the settlement.

After trial, the Sandiganbayan found petitioner guilty of robbery extortion and sentenced her to imprisonment. The petitioner filed a petition for review, seeking her acquittal.

ISSUES:

  1. Whether the Sandiganbayan's conclusion that the petitioner employed intimidation to obtain P100,000.00 is supported by evidence.

  2. Whether the elements of robbery with intimidation are present in this case.

  3. Whether the petitioner took the P100,000 "grease money" from the complainants through intimidation.

  4. Whether the petitioner's actions constitute robbery with intimidation.

  5. Whether the penalty for the crime committed is prision mayor.

  6. Whether the crime committed falls under the vagrancy law.

RULING:

  1. The Supreme Court does not agree with the petitioner. The Sandiganbayan's factual findings are binding, unless there are exceptions such as grave abuse of discretion or misapprehension of facts. In this case, none of these exceptions are present.

  2. The elements of robbery with intimidation have been adequately established by the prosecution. The personal property of R&R, which is the P100,000.00, was unlawfully taken by the petitioner with intent to gain through intimidation. The petitioner's position as a public officer in the DENR gave her the power to implement forestry laws, and she used this position to threaten the complainants with possible confiscation of logs and prosecution if they did not give her the money. Intent to gain was proven from the unlawful taking, and the petitioner employed intimidation by causing fear and mental distress to the victims.

  3. Yes, the petitioner took the P100,000 "grease money" from the complainants through intimidation. By using her position as Senior Management Specialist of the DENR, the petitioner coerced the complainants to choose between parting with their money or facing the burden and humiliation of prosecution and confiscation of the logs.

  4. Yes, the petitioner's actions constitute robbery with intimidation. The Court referred to previous cases involving similar factual scenarios and held that the elements of robbery with intimidation were present in the petitioner's case. The Court emphasized that the acts of the petitioner engendered fear in the minds of the victims and hindered the free exercise of their will.

  5. The court rules that the penalty for the crime committed is prision mayor.

  6. The court rules that the crime committed falls under the vagrancy law.

PRINCIPLES:

  • In appeals to the Supreme Court, only questions of law may be raised, not issues of fact.

  • Factual findings of the Sandiganbayan are binding on the Supreme Court, unless there are exceptions.

  • The elements of robbery with intimidation are: a) personal property belonging to another; b) unlawful taking of the property; c) intent to gain; and d) violence against or intimidation of persons or force upon things.

  • Robbery may be considered complete from the moment the offender gains possession of the thing, even if there is no opportunity to dispose of it.

  • Intent to gain in robbery is presumed from the unlawful taking of things, regardless of actual gain.

  • Intimidation in robbery is causing fear or mental distress in the mind of the victim, which continues to operate at the time of delivering the money.

  • Intimidation as defined in various jurisprudence

  • Presumption of innocence until guilty beyond reasonable doubt

  • Proof beyond reasonable doubt does not demand absolute certainty and the exclusion of all possibility of error

  • Aggravating circumstance of abuse of public position

  • Penalty for simple robbery under Article 294(5) of the RPC

  • Application of the Indeterminate Sentence Law

  • The penalty for a crime is determined by the law, based on the nature and elements of the offense committed.

  • The determination of whether a particular act falls under a specific law is based on the elements and elements of the crime as defined by the law.