G.R. No. 236290 , January 20, 2021
Journey Kenneth Asa y Ambulo, Petitioner, vs. People of the Philippines, Respondent.

FACTS

Petitioner Journey Kenneth Asa y Ambulo was charged with Robbery with Intimidation of Persons. The prosecution alleged that on December 23, 2010, petitioner, using the Facebook account name “Indho Than,” threatened to post private and post-coital photos of the private complainant, Joyce Erica Dela Cruz Varias, unless she complied with his demands. After private complainant begged him not to release the photos, petitioner initially demanded sex in exchange for deleting the photos and taking down a fake account. Private complainant refused but offered money instead. Petitioner agreed to accept P5,000.00 in exchange for the memory card containing the photos, with a meeting set at McDonald’s in Dasmariñas City on December 30, 2010. Private complainant reported the blackmail to the police, who conducted an entrapment operation. During the meeting, petitioner showed the photos on his phone, private complainant handed over the marked money, and petitioner gave her the memory card. Upon a pre-arranged signal, the police arrested petitioner. The defense claimed petitioner was merely at McDonald’s to buy food, recognized the complainant as a schoolmate, spoke to her, and was later arrested after finding an envelope in his bag while he was in the restroom.

ISSUE

Whether or not the Court of Appeals committed a reversible error in affirming the Regional Trial Court’s Decision convicting petitioner of the crime of Robbery with Intimidation of Persons.

RULING

The Supreme Court denied the petition and affirmed the assailed Court of Appeals Decision. The Court held that the petition raised factual issues, which are not proper in a Rule 45 petition for review on certiorari, as the Court is not a trier of facts. It found no reason to deviate from the factual findings of the lower courts, which were supported by substantial evidence. The Court ruled that all elements of Robbery with Intimidation of Persons were present: (1) there was unlawful taking of cash; (2) the cash belonged to another; (3) the taking was with intent to gain; and (4) it was accomplished by means of intimidation upon a person. The intimidation was established by petitioner’s threat to publicly expose private complainant’s intimate photos, which caused fear and mental distress. The Court also addressed petitioner’s claim regarding inconsistencies in the private complainant’s testimony, stating that whether the money was offered by the victim or demanded by the accused is irrelevant to the consummation of the crime, as the unlawful taking still resulted from intimidation. Any minor inconsistencies did not impair the witness’s overall credibility.