G.R. No. 261156 , August 23, 2023
ROBERT CATAN Y MASANGKAY, PETITIONER, VS. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, RESPONDENT.

FACTS

Petitioner Robert Catan y Masangkay was charged with Simple Robbery under Article 294(5) of the Revised Penal Code (RPC) in relation to Section 6 of Republic Act (RA) No. 10175 (Cybercrime Prevention Act of 2012), and two counts of violation of Section 10(a) of RA 7610 (Special Protection of Children Against Abuse, Exploitation and Discrimination Act). The charges stemmed from an incident on September 23, 2018. Minor BBB lost his cellphone containing nude pictures and videos of his girlfriend, minor AAA. Subsequently, AAA received Facebook messages from an account named “Rolly Gatmaitan” threatening to post the private materials online unless paid PHP 20,000.00, later increased to PHP 30,000.00. The minors reported the incident to the police. An entrapment operation was set where AAA, acting on instructions from “Rolly,” left marked money in a red plastic bag at a designated location. A man on a motorcycle arrived, took the money, and was chased and apprehended by police officers. The apprehended man was identified as Robert Catan. Upon arrest, the police recovered the marked money and BBB’s lost cellphone from Catan’s possession. During trial, the prosecution presented the testimonies of the minors and the police officers. Catan waived his right to present evidence. The Regional Trial Court (RTC) acquitted Catan of the two counts under RA 7610 but convicted him of Simple Robbery in relation to RA 10175. The Court of Appeals (CA) affirmed the RTC’s decision.

ISSUE

Whether the Court of Appeals erred in affirming the conviction of petitioner Robert Catan for the crime of Simple Robbery under Article 294(5) of the RPC in relation to Section 6 of RA 10175.

RULING

The Supreme Court denied the petition and affirmed the conviction. The Court held that all elements of Simple Robbery were proven beyond reasonable doubt: (1) there was taking of personal property (the PHP 1,000.00 marked money); (2) the property belonged to another (the minors); (3) the taking was with intent to gain; and (4) the taking was accomplished by means of intimidation (the threat to post the nude materials online). The qualifying circumstance under Section 6 of RA 10175, that the crime was committed through information and communications technology, was also present, warranting the imposition of a penalty one degree higher. The Court found the identity of Catan as the perpetrator was established through circumstantial evidence, including his possession of the lost cellphone containing the private materials, his presence at the entrapment operation, his act of picking up the marked money, and his failure to provide a credible explanation for these circumstances. The penalty imposed by the RTC, as affirmed by the CA, was within the range prescribed by law.