G.R. No. 255583 , August 02, 2023
Axel Tria y Cipriano, Petitioner, vs. People of the Philippines, Respondent.

FACTS

Petitioner Axel Tria y Cipriano and private complainant AAA were lovers. Their relationship soured, and Tria became abusive. He gained access to AAA’s Facebook account and later hacked into her online business Facebook page. On August 23, 2015, AAA discovered through her sister’s account that a half-naked photo of her, a screenshot from a private video, had been uploaded to her Facebook page with a derogatory caption. Another photo depicted a naked woman with AAA’s face superimposed. AAA confronted Tria, who offered to delete the photos in exchange for PHP 55,000.00, a three-day hotel stay, and reconciliation. AAA verbally agreed, and the photos were temporarily removed. When AAA stopped responding to Tria, the photos were re-uploaded. Tria persisted in demanding money, and AAA eventually reported the matter to the CIDG Anti-Cybercrime Group. An entrapment operation was set up at Gaisano Mall. During the meeting, Tria asked if the money was ready, and after AAA handed him PHP 15,000.00, she gave a pre-arranged signal leading to his arrest. Tria was charged with robbery with intimidation under Article 294 of the Revised Penal Code in relation to the Cybercrime Prevention Act and online libel. The Regional Trial Court convicted Tria of robbery but acquitted him of online libel due to a variance between the allegations in the Information and the evidence presented. The Court of Appeals affirmed the robbery conviction but modified the penalty. Tria filed a Petition for Review on Certiorari before the Supreme Court.

ISSUE

Whether the Court of Appeals erred in affirming petitioner Axel Tria y Cipriano’s conviction for the crime of robbery with violence against or intimidation of persons.

RULING

The Supreme Court denied the petition and affirmed the conviction. The Court found that all elements of robbery with intimidation were present: (1) Tria took personal property belonging to AAA (the PHP 15,000.00); (2) the taking was with intent to gain; (3) the taking was accomplished by means of intimidation; and (4) the property was taken without the owner’s consent. The intimidation was established through Tria’s acts of uploading and threatening to upload AAA’s private and compromising photos online to force her to give him money. The defense of denial and frame-up was rejected for being weak and self-serving compared to the clear and consistent testimony of AAA, which was corroborated by the entrapment operation and the extracted text messages. The penalty imposed by the Court of Appeals was affirmed: an indeterminate penalty of six years of prision correccional, as minimum, to fourteen years of reclusion temporal, as maximum.