Case Digest (G.R. No. 236290)
Facts:
Petitioner Journey Kenneth Asa y Ambulo was charged in an Information dated January 25, 2010 with Robbery under Article 293 of the Revised Penal Code, for acts on December 30, 2010 in the City of Dasmarinas, Cavite. The prosecution evidence showed that through Facebook messages and threats to publicly post private photos, petitioner intimidated private complainant into giving him an envelope containing PHP 5,000.00 at McDonald’s in Walter Mart, after which police arrested him during an entrapment operation.
Petitioner denied the charge, claiming he merely went to buy food and that he was handcuffed and brought to the police station without warning. The RTC convicted him on November 12, 2015, and the CA affirmed on August 30, 2017 with modification deleting exemplary damages, while denying petitioner’s motion for reconsideration on December 13, 2017.
Issues:
- Whether the CA committed reversible error in affirming petitioner’s conviction for Robbery with Intimidation of Persons under Article 293.
- Whether the alleged contradictions in private complainant’s statements negated proof beyond reasonable doubt of petitioner’s guilt, particularly on whether he demanded PHP 5,000.00.
- Whether the element of unlawful taking was absent because petitioner allegedly did not demand money, since private complainant offered it instead.
Ruling:
The petition was denied, and the CA decision was affirmed in full. The Supreme Court held that petitioner’s arguments on the credibility of witnesses and on whether PHP 5,000.00 was demanded involved factual matters not reviewable under Rule 45 absent recognized exceptions, which were not shown.
On the merits, the Court ruled that petitioner’s threat to publicly post the private photos compelled the giving of the money and satisfied the intimidation and unlawful taking elements, and that any inconsistencies on the “offered or demanded” detail were minor and immaterial.
Ratio:
Under Rule 45, only questions of law may be raised, and factual findings of the CA and the RTC—when supported by substantial evidence—are final and conclusive. The Court found that petitioner essentially sought a re-evaluation of the evidence’s probative value and the lower courts’ appreciation of testimony, which was barred because no exception to the rule prohibiting factual review was present.
As to the crime’s elements, the Court concluded that the “counter-offer” by private complainant did not amount to consent, because it was made in response to petitioner’s existing and continuing threat to post the photos on Facebook. Petitioner’s acceptance of PHP 5,000.00 merely amended his demand from a sexual one to a monetary one, and thus the money was taken against or without consent due to intimidation. The Court further held that any inconsistencies concerning whether the amount was offered or demanded referred only to a minor detail and did not undermine the principal occurrence and petitioner’s identification, and in any event the amount’s “offered vs. demanded” characterization was irrelevant to the robbery committed through intimidation.
Doctrine:
- A Rule 45 petition raises only questions of law, and factual findings of the CA supported by substantial evidence are final and binding.
- Exceptions permitting review of factual findings include, among others, when findings rest on misapprehension of facts, conflicting findings, or when specific evidence cited is absent or overlooked, but these must be shown.
- In Robbery with Intimidation of Persons under Article 293, threats that engender fear and compel the victim to give property satisfy the intimidation and unlawful taking elements.
- A “counter-offer” made due to an extant threat does not negate the lack of consent, and changing the demand from one form to another (sexual to monetary) does not defeat unlawful taking.
- Inconsistencies on minor details do not impair credibility when the principal occurrence and positive identification remain consistent.