The Supreme Court has affirmed the conviction of two police officers for robbery extortion in a recent decision.

"Law enforcement officers who abuse their authority to intimidate persons under their custody for money are guilty of robbery by extortion."

This was emphasized by the Supreme Court's Second Division in a Decision penned by Senior Associate Justice Marvic M.V.F. Leonen, as it denied the consolidated petitions for review on certiorari filed by PO2 Ireneo M.Sosas Jr. and SPO3 Ariel D. Salvador.

The two challenged the rulings of the Court of Appeals which had affirmed the Regional Trial Court's convictions of PO2 Sosas and SPO3 Salvador for robbery.

Information for robbery against the two was filed by the Office of the Deputy Ombudsman for the Military and Other Law Enforcement Offices following a complaint from Janith Arbuez.

Arbuez, a salesperson at a used cellphone shop at Isetann Mall, alleged that PO2 Sosas escorted her from the cellphone shop to the mall's administrative office to report her sale of stolen items.

PO2 Sosas 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 AntiFencing Law would be charged against Arbuez if she would give the officers PhP20,000.

When Arbuez negotiated for a lower amount, PO2 Sosas agreed on the condition they become "sweethearts." Arbuez refused and called her sister-inlaw to bring the money to the station. After 18 hours in detention, Arbuez was released the next day following PO2 Sosas' receipt of the money. PO2 Sosas also stated that a complaint will no longer be filed against Arbuez.

The RTC found PO2 Sosas and SPO3 Salvador guilty of robbery under Article 293 of the Revised Penal Code and was affirmed by the Court of Appeals, prompting the present petitions.

In denying the petitions, the Court held that the following elements must be proved for a conviction of robbery by extortion: There is personal property belonging to another; there is unlawful taking of that property; the taking is with intent to gain; and there is violence against or intimidation of persons.

In the present case, the Court found that all elements were established by the prosecution beyond reasonable doubt.

The amount of 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 also 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 decide whether to file a criminal complaint.