In 2018, then President Duterte increased the base pay of the police to prevent corruption. Those with the rank of Police Officer [PO] 1 got a 100-percent salary increase while other officers got 59%.
Our laws gave law enforcers the obligation to serve and protect the people and the right to maintain peace and order. As such, they can use their firearms to prevent crimes and catch, but not to kill criminals. In doing so, they have the authority to file criminal cases, but legally, cannot decide to withdraw or dismiss on their own. This is because the power to dismiss a criminal case belongs to the public prosecutors.
Some police brutality and shenanigans hogged the headlines for their abuse of power. There was a bad joke before that sometimes, it was difficult to distinguish the criminals from policemen because they are in the same uniform. This compelled the head of the PNP to clean their ranks and rid the institution of bad eggs and rough cops -who are very few-that taint the good reputation of so many good cops.
However, our laws gave the people the power to help curb any abuse of power by filing a case before the National Police Commission [NAPOLCOM] and Internal Affairs Service [IAS] of the Philippine National Police. In fact, people can file, anonymously, complaints against any erring policemen not only before the Office of the Ombudsman under R.A. 6770, but also before the PLEB – People’s Legislative Enforcement Board of every city or municipality under R.A. 6975 and 8551.
What happens when a law enforcer abuses his authority and intimidate the persons they arrest? What crime is committed when law enforcers become law breakers? The question was answered in the recent case of Sosas, Jr. v. People and Salvador v. People, G.R. Nos. 249283 and 249400 dated 26 April 2023.
An information for robbery against PO2 Sosas and SPO3 Salvador was filed by the Office of the Ombudsman based on the complaint of a saleswoman at a used cellphone shop at Isetann Mall. She 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 if she would give the officers P20,000. She negotiated for a lower amount. PO2 Sosas agreed on the condition they become “sweethearts.” She refused and called her sister-in-law to bring the money to the station.
After 18 hours in detention, she was released the next day following PO2 Sosas’ receipt of the money. PO2 Sosas also stated that a complaint will no longer be filed. The Regional Trial Court found PO2 Sosas and SPO3 Salvador guilty of robbery under Article 293 of the Revised Penal Code. The Court of Appeals affirmed the RTC decision. The policemen appealed.
Our Honorable Supreme Court ruled that when law enforcement officers abuse their authority to intimidate persons under their custody for money, they are guilty of robbery by extortion. 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.
The Court found all elements were established beyond reasonable doubt. The P20,000 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 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 to decide whether to file a criminal complaint. As for SPO3 Salvador’s involvement, the Court found that the existence of conspiracy was proven to extort money from Arbuez. It was further ruled that police officers are tasked to implement the law and they could not demand and receive any amount from private persons as a consideration for them not to pursue the case against them.
Under such circumstances, their eventual receipt of the money makes the taking unlawful. They are law enforcement agents while Arbuez is an ordinary citizen. Given the threats of continued deprivation of liberty and possibility of criminal prosecution, it is easy to conclude that they intimidated Arbuez into giving them money. Their conviction for robbery and sentence of three to eight years imprisonment was affirmed.