Case Summary (G.R. No. 255583)
Key Places and Dates
Alleged criminal acts occurred in August 2015 in xxxxxx City (specific dates in the Informations include “on or about the 24th day of August 2015” and “sometime in August 2015 or prior thereto”). RTC judgment: November 19, 2018. Court of Appeals decision: January 10, 2020; CA resolution denying reconsideration: December 15, 2020. The Supreme Court rendered the present decision on August 2, 2023. Applicable constitutional framework: 1987 Philippine Constitution (decision in 2023).
Applicable Law and Legal Standards
Primary substantive provisions invoked: Article 294 (robbery with violence against or intimidation of persons) of the Revised Penal Code; Section 6 of Republic Act No. 10175 (Cybercrime Prevention Act of 2012) — which raises by one degree the penalty for crimes committed by, through, and with the use of information and communications technologies; and principles under the Indeterminate Sentence Law for computing minimum and maximum terms. Procedural jurisdictional standard: Rule 45 of the Rules of Court governing petitions for review on certiorari (discretionary review subject to specified grounds).
Charges Filed and Case Consolidation
Two separate Informations were filed against Tria and consolidated for trial: (1) Criminal Case No. 13300 — robbery with intimidation (alleging demand and taking of P15,000 from AAA in exchange for deleting nude photos he posted on the internet); and (2) Criminal Case No. 13301 — online libel (alleging hacking of AAA’s Facebook account and posting/ captioning nude/photoshopped images with defamatory caption). Tria pleaded not guilty to both charges; the cases were consolidated and tried together.
Prosecution Version and Evidence
AAA testified that she and Tria had a romantic relationship that soured; she had given him her Facebook password to appease him. Tria allegedly became abusive, threatened to upload intimate photos/videos, and showed her a sex video and photos. He demanded P55,000 on August 12, 2015; when she refused he allegedly hacked her online business Facebook page, changed credentials, and uploaded compromising images and captions (some images allegedly photoshopped). Tria later reduced his demand to P20,000 and finally to P15,000 (with P5,000 for hotel expenses). AAA reported the matter to the CIDG Anti‑Cybercrime Group which conducted an entrapment operation: at the arranged meeting in Gaisano Mall, AAA handed P15,000 to Tria and CIDG arrested him. Cybercrime investigator SPO2 Benavente performed forensic examination of seized phones using Cellebrite, extracted call logs and text messages (some messages had to be manually transcribed), and testified about corroborative contents and an overheard phone conversation between AAA and Tria.
Defense Version
Tria denied the allegations. He admitted to an affair with AAA begun in 2014, described mutual taking and exchange of intimate photos/videos, and claimed he deleted sent files out of concern his wife would discover the affair. He asserted that he broke off the relationship in July 2015. He denied demanding money and asserted that the P15,000 found in his possession was voluntarily handed to him by AAA when he assisted her in looking for boarding house accommodation during an agreed meeting; he maintained he was set up and immediately arrested when he accepted the money. He rejected authorship of the threatening texts and denied harassing AAA.
Trial Court Findings and Judgment
The Regional Trial Court (Branch 6, xxxxxx City) issued a Joint Judgment on November 19, 2018. The RTC acquitted Tria of online libel, finding a variance between the allegations in the Information and the evidence adduced (confusion between two Facebook accounts and the particular libelous postings alleged). On the robbery charge (Criminal Case No. 13300), the RTC found the prosecution established the elements of robbery with intimidation beyond reasonable doubt and convicted Tria under Article 294(5) of the Revised Penal Code in relation to Section 6 of RA 10175. The RTC imposed an indeterminate sentence corresponding to prision correccional in its maximum to prision mayor in its medium period (as constrained by the applicable ranges and recovery of the money).
Court of Appeals Ruling
The Court of Appeals affirmed the RTC in a Decision dated January 10, 2020 and denied reconsideration on December 15, 2020. The CA agreed that Tria demanded money in exchange for deleting intimate photos, that AAA positively identified Tria as the sender of the demand texts, and that SPO2 Benavente’s forensic work and testimony corroborated AAA’s account (including extraction/transcription of text messages and an overheard call). The CA thus sustained the conviction for robbery with intimidation.
Issues Raised in the Petition to the Supreme Court
Tria sought relief by petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45, arguing mainly: (1) that SPO2 Benavente failed to exert due diligence to ascertain the identity of the caller and relied on AAA’s representations; (2) that the integrity of the text messages is questionable because many were manually transcribed over two days, permitting possible tampering of the seized phone; and (3) that there was no unlawful taking with intent to gain because AAA voluntarily handed him the P15,000 and asked him to hold it since she had no bag.
Procedural and Jurisdictional Defects of the Petition
The Supreme Court noted procedural defects in Tria’s petition: he attached only the CA dispositions, submitted a scanned copy of the verification and certification against forum shopping, and the affidavit of service lacked proof of the affiant’s identity. These defects, together with the fact that Rule 45 relief is discretionary and limited to specified grounds (questions of substance or departures from usual proceedings), supplied independent bases for dismissal. The Court observed Tria did not demonstrate the special and important reasons warranting the exercise of discretionary review.
Merits: Elements of Robbery Applied to the Facts
On the merits the Supreme Court analyzed Article 294(5) (governing robbery with violence against or intimidation of persons where there is no resultant death or bodily injury, referencing Article 249(5) for elements): (a) personal property belonging to another; (b) unlawful taking; (c) intent to gain; and (d) violence against or intimidation of persons. The Court found that AAA parted with P15,000 in exchange for Tria’s promise to delete compromising photos posted online. Given the photos’ continued harm to her family life, reputation, and business, AAA was constrained to pay; the taking became complete upon Tria’s acquisition of the money. Intent to gain was properly imputed and presumed. The intimidation element was satisfied by the threats and the context of extortion to delete publicly posted intimate material.
Evidence Assessment and Credibility of Witnesses
The Supreme Court emphasized the trial courts’ primary role in resolving credibility and accorded weight to the RTC and CA findings. It found that identity of the extortionist was established not solely by SPO2 Benavente but also by AAA’s positive identification and by Tria’s appearance at the agreed m
...continue readingCase Syllabus (G.R. No. 255583)
Case and Procedural Posture
- Petition for Review on Certiorari under Rule 45 (G.R. No. 255583, August 02, 2023) filed by petitioner Axel Tria y Cipriano (Tria) assails:
- Decision of the Court of Appeals dated January 10, 2020 in CA-G.R. CR No. 42776 affirming Tria’s conviction for robbery with violence against or intimidation of persons under Article 294 of the Revised Penal Code; and
- Resolution of the Court of Appeals dated December 15, 2020 denying reconsideration.
- Supreme Court opinion authored by Justice Lazaro-Javier.
- The petition prays for a verdict of acquittal from this Court.
Antecedent Informations and Charges
- Two separate Informations charged Tria in two criminal cases:
- Criminal Case No. 13300 (Robbery / Extortion):
- Allegation: On or about August 24, 2015, in the City of xxxxxx, Tria, by means of intimidation and with intent to gain, demanded, took, and extorted P15,000.00 from complainant AAA in exchange for deleting her nude photos posted/uploaded on the Internet/Facebook, to her damage and prejudice.
- Alleged that the act was committed by, through, and with the use of information and communications technologies, invoking RA 10175.
- Criminal Case No. 13301 (Online Libel):
- Allegation: Sometime in August 2015 or prior thereto, Tria, with malice and intent to cast dishonor on AAA, hacked her Facebook account used for business advertisement and posted/uploaded a caption and/or words defamatory to her character — specifically the caption “Ang makating babae ng xxxxxx [AAA]” — thereby offending her good name, character and reputation.
- Criminal Case No. 13300 (Robbery / Extortion):
- On arraignment, Tria pleaded not guilty to both charges. The cases were consolidated and jointly tried.
Parties, Judges, and Representations
- Petitioner/accused: Axel Tria y Cipriano.
- Private complainant: Referred to throughout as AAA; name and identifying particulars kept confidential in accordance with Amended Administrative Circular No. 83-2015 and relevant statutes (footnote 4).
- Trial court: Regional Trial Court, Branch 6, xxxxxx City. Joint Judgment penned by Judge Elmer M. Lanuzo (November 19, 2018).
- Court of Appeals: Decision penned by Associate Justice Rafael Antonio M. Santos, concurred in by Associate Justices Manuel M. Barrios and Geraldine C. Fiel-Macaraig (January 10, 2020); Resolution denying reconsideration dated December 15, 2020.
- Supreme Court: Decision authored by Justice Lazaro-Javier; concurring justices Leonen (SAJ, Chairperson), M. Lopez, J. Lopez, and Kho, Jr.
Prosecution Version — Factual Narrative by AAA
- AAA and Tria were lovers; relationship initially blissful for six months but turned sour due to Tria’s jealousy and abusive behavior.
- AAA gave Tria the password to her Facebook account to appease him; his abusive conduct worsened thereafter.
- Tria allegedly sent abusive and indecent messages to AAA and to her son, including words such as “puta ka,” “malandi,” “maharot,” “magpakantot ka na,” and threats to upload photos and a sex video to humiliate her and her family.
- On one occasion, Tria showed AAA their sex video and several pictures and threatened to upload them; he promised to delete the files when AAA asked.
- On August 12, 2015, Tria allegedly demanded PHP 55,000.00; AAA refused for lack of funds. Tria then allegedly hacked AAA’s online business Facebook page (“xxxxx Buy and Sell”) and changed its username and password to lock her out.
- On August 23, 2015, AAA discovered via her sister’s account that a half-naked photo (a screenshot of the sex video) and a photo of a naked woman with AAA’s face superimposed had been uploaded with the caption “AAA malibog Malate.”
- Confronting Tria, he allegedly offered to delete the photos in exchange for payment of PHP 55,000.00, or for AAA to stay with him in a hotel for three days and reconcile; AAA verbally acceded and the photos were temporarily removed but later re-uploaded when AAA stopped responding.
- Tria allegedly reduced his demand to PHP 20,000.00, then to PHP 15,000.00 (the remaining PHP 5,000.00 to be for hotel expenses).
- AAA reported the matter to the CIDG Anti-Cybercrime Group; an entrapment operation was staged. At the arranged meeting in Gaisano Mall, AAA handed Tria PHP 15,000.00, signaled authorities, and Tria was arrested.
Prosecution Technical Evidence — SPO2 Benavente
- Senior Police Officer 2 Carlo Benavente (SPO2 Benavente), cybercrime investigator, testified to conducting forensic examination on:
- Two cellphones confiscated from Tria.
- Three cellphones used by AAA.
- He used Cellebrite software to extract and save unalterable call logs and text messages; the software did not work flawlessly with the devices involved.
- Because of software limitations, SPO2 Benavente manually encoded a bulk of the messages by handwriting; the transcription process took about two days.
- SPO2 Benavente corroborated AAA’s account from the messages processed and from an overheard phone conversation between AAA and the person she identified as Tria during the pre-arranged entrapment operation.
- The investigative testimony and extracted messages were offered to corroborate AAA’s narration and to establish communications and threats.
Defense Version — Tria’s Account
- Tria admitted meeting AAA on an online dating site (OK Cupid) in March 2014 and acknowledged their extramarital affair. Both were aware of each other’s marital status during the affair.
- Sexual encounters were documented by both; AAA allegedly took the pictures and videos of their sexual intercourse and sent them to Tria, who claimed to delete them immediately for fear his wife would find out.
- Tria asserted that he broke off the relationship in July 2015 because AAA became possessive, demanded too much (even asking him to marry her in Hong Kong), and, on one occasion, shot him with his own gun during a clandestine meeting — an injury requiring hospitalization at xxxxxxxxxxxxx Hospital in xxxxxx City. He did not file charges for that incident.
- Tria denied sending threatening messages or contacting AAA after their breakup, except when AAA called him in August 2015 asking for help to look for a boarding house because she was allegedly being evicted.
- Tria testified that he agreed to meet AAA at Gaisano Mall solely to assist her; he denied asking her for money.
- He claimed AAA voluntarily handed him the PHP 15,000.00 (saying she might lose it because she had no bag); he initially refused to take it in the mall but eventually accepted, after which he was arrested.
Trial Court Findings and Joint Judgment (November 19, 2018)
- The Regional Trial Court (Branch 6, xxxxxx City) rendered a Joint Judgment:
- Criminal Case No. 13300 (Robbery): Found Tria guilty beyond reasonable doubt of Robbery with Intimidation of Person/Extortion under Article 294, par. 5 of the Revised Penal Code in relation to Se