G.R. No.

222861 APRIL 23, 2018

PO2 JESSIE FLORES y DE LEON, petitioner,
vs
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, respondent.

FACTS:
1. Private complainant France figured in a vehicular collision with a passenger jeepney.
2. After a traffic enforcer arrived and prepared a sketch of the incident, France (the plaintiff) and the
jeepney driver proceeded to Station 10, Kamuning Police Station where PO2 Flores, herein
appellant, investigated the incident.
3. The jeepney driver was told to go home while France was asked to remain at the station. He was
told to return to the station after two days and prepare the amount of ₱2,000.00 so he can get back
his driver's license.
4. A Traffic Violation Receipt (TVR)  No. 1022911 was issued and signed by PO2 Flores who told
France that the same would serve as the latter's temporary driver's license. France became
suspicious as he recalled that on a previous occasion when his driver's license was confiscated due
to a traffic violation the same was claimed from the office of the Metro Manila Development
Authority (MMDA)  or City Hall and not from the officer who confiscated his license.
5. Sensing that something was not right, France went to the headquarters of the PAOCTF in Camp
Crame to file a complaint against PO2 Flores.
6. The entrapment was headed by PO2 Ilao, the PAOCTF team proceeded to Station 10, Kamuning
Police Station together with France.
7. PO2 Flores called France to his table, he opened the drawer and told the latter to drop the money
inside.
8. PO2 Flores then counted the money inside the drawer using his left hand. As soon as France asked
for his driver's license, the PAOCTF team suddenly materialized at the scene.

ISSUES:
1. WON petitioner guilty of simple robbery (extortion)
2. WON petitioner’s exoneration from the administrative case of grave misconduct bars the criminal case
against him

RULING:
1. Yes, the honorable Court finds no compelling reason to disturb the factual findings of the lower court, as
affirmed by the CA and uphold the ruling that the prosecution established all the elements of the crime
beyond reasonable doubt, to wit:
In the present case, there is no doubt that the prosecution successfully established all the
elements of the crime charged. France, the private complainant categorically testified that that
petitioner demanded and eventually received from him the amount of Two Thousand Pesos
(₱2,000.00) in exchange for the release of his driver's license. When the marked money was placed
inside petitioner's drawer, who counted it afterwards, he was deemed to have taken possession of
the money. This amount was unlawfully taken by petitioner from France with intent to gain and
through intimidation.
2. No, the Court ruled that the administrative case for grave misconduct filed against petitioner and the
present case for simple robbery are separate and distinct cases, and are independent from each other. The
administrative and criminal proceedings may involve similar facts but each requires a different quantum of
evidence. In addition, the administrative proceeding conducted was before the PNP-IAS and was summary
in nature. In contrast, in the instant criminal case, the RTC conducted a full blown trial and the prosecution
was required to proffer proof beyond reasonable doubt to secure petitioner's conviction. Furthermore, the
proceedings included witnesses who were key figures in the events leading to petitioner's arrest. Witnesses
of both parties were cross examined by their respective counsels creating a clearer picture of what
transpired, which allowed the trial judge to have a better appreciation of the attendant facts and
determination of whether the prosecution proved the crime charged beyond reasonable doubt.

G.R. No. 202692               November 12, 2014

EDMUND SYDECO y SIONZON, Petitioner,
vs.
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Respondent.

FACTS:

1. Herein petitioner was charged before the MeTC-Manila for driving under the influence of alcohol
thus a violation of Republic Act No. 4136 and for resisting arrest of persons in authority under
Article 151 of the Revised Penal Code;
2. Edmund was flagged down at the checkpoint along Roxas Avenue corner Quirino Avenue manned
by the team of P/Ins. Aguilar because the former was spotted to have been driving his vehicle in a
swerving manner;
3. He was instructed to alight the vehicle by said team and told to stop at a nearby police station to
take some rest but petitioner denied that he was not drunk, he refused to alight the car insisted that
he could drive and swore at the team leader, P/Ins. Aguilar;
4. P/Ins. Aguilar irked when petitioner won’t alight the car to be subjected to a bodily search and
answered that the search must be done only in a plain view manner. Said inspector boxed the latter
and put a gun unto the latter’s head, accused him of being drunk because of the empty cases of
beer in his vehicle and was arrested; and
5. Despite petitioner’s efforts to parry the hold on him, the police eventually succeeded in subduing
him who was then brought to the Ospital ng Maynila where he was examined and found to be
positive of alcoholic breath per the Medical Certificate issued by that hospital.

ISSUE:
WON the police officers accordingly

RULING:

No, the honorable Court ruled that the police officers in the case at bar did not act accordingly, the ruling
reads:

In the case at bar, the men manning the checkpoint in the subject area and during the period
material appeared not to have performed their duties as required by law, or at least fell short of the
norm expected of peace officers. They spotted the petitioner’s purported swerving vehicle. They
then signaled him to stop which he obeyed. But they did not demand the presentation of the
driver’s license orissue any ticket or similar citation paper for traffic violation as required under the
particular premises by Sec. 29 of RA 4136, which specifically provides:

SECTION 29. Confiscation of Driver’s License. – Law enforcement and peace officers of
other agencies duly deputized by the Director shall, in apprehending a driver for any
violation of this Act or any regulations issued pursuant thereto, or of local traffic rules and
regulations x x x confiscate the license of the driver concerned and issue a receipt prescribed
and issued by the Bureau therefor which shall authorize the driver to operate a motor
vehicle for a period not exceeding seventy-two hours from the time and date of issue of said
receipt. The period so fixed in the receipt shall not be extended, and shall become invalid
thereafter x x (Emphasis added.)

Instead of requiring the vehicle’s occupants to answer one or two routinary questions out of
respect to what the Court has, in Abenes v. Court of Appeals, adverted to as the motorists’ right of
"free passage without [intrusive] interruption," P/Insp. Aguilar, et al. engaged petitioner in what
appears to be an unnecessary conversation and when utterances were made doubtless not to their
liking, they ordered the latter to step out of the vehicle, concluding after seeing three (3) empty
cases of beer at the trunk of the vehicle that petitioner was driving under the influence of alcohol.
Then petitioner went on with his "plain view search" line. The remark apparently pissed the police
officers off no end as one of them immediately lashed at petitioner and his companions as "mga
lasing" (drunk) and to get out of the vehicle, an incongruous response to an otherwise reasonable
plea.
 Further, it is fairly clear that what triggered the confrontational stand-off between the police
team, on one hand, and petitioner on the other, was the latter’s refusal to get off of the vehicle for a
body and vehicle search juxtaposed by his insistence on a plain view search only. Petitioner’s twin
gestures cannot plausibly be considered as resisting a lawful order. He may have sounded boorish
or spoken crudely at that time, but none of this would make him a criminal. It remains to stress that
the petitioner has not, when flagged down, committed a crime or performed an overt act
warranting a reasonable inference of criminal activity. He did not try to avoid the road block
established. He came to a full stop when so required to stop. The two key elements of resistance and
serious disobedience punished under Art. 151 of the RPC are: (1) That a person in authority or his
agent is engaged in the performance of official duty or gives a lawful order to the offender; and (2)
That the offender resists or seriously disobeys such person or his agent.

Lastly, there can be no quibble that P/Insp. Aguilar and his apprehending team are persons
in authority or agents of a person in authority manning a legal checkpoint. But surely petitioner’s
act of exercising one’s right against unreasonable searches to be conducted in the middle of the
night cannot, in context, be equated to disobedience let alone resisting a lawful order in
contemplation of Art. 151 of the RPC. As has often been said, albeit expressed differently and under
dissimilar circumstances, the vitality of democracy lies not in the rights it guarantees, but in the
courage of the people to assert and use them whenever they are ignored or worse infringed.