G.R. No. 236290. January 20, 2021
JOURNEY KENNETH ASA Y AMBULO, PETITIONER, VS. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES; RESPONDENT.
DELOS SANTOS, J.:
dated November 12, 2015 of the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Imus,
Cavite, Branch 21 in Criminal Case No. 8293-11, finding Journey Kenneth
Asa y Ambulo (petitioner) guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of
Robbery with Intimidation of Persons.
Antecedents
In an Information dated January 25, 2010 filed before the RTC,
petitioner was charged with the crime of Robbery under Article 293 of
the Revised Penal Code (RPC), the accusatory portion of which reads:
That on or about the 30th day of December
2010, in the City of Dasmariñas, Philippines, the above-named accused,
with intent [to] gain and by the use of intimidation, to wit: that said
accused will expose publicly the memory card containing the intimate
relationship between the complainant Erica Dela Cruz Varias and her
fiance, thereby causing fear upon said the complainant of being exposed
to public ridicule and humiliation, by did then and there unlawfully and
feloniously take, steal and carry away cash money in the amount of
Php5,000.00 belonging to and owned by said Joyce Erica DelaCruz Varias,
without her consent, to the damage and prejudice of the said offended
party in the amount aforementioned.CONTRARY TO LAW.[5]
Upon arraignment, petitioner entered a plea of “not guilty.” Trial ensued thereafter.
The prosecution offered in evidence the oral testimonies of four (4) witnesses, namely: Joyce Erica Varias[6]
(private complainant), Police Officer III (PO3) Ronald Lorenzo (PO3
Lorenzo), PO3 Aaron Abesamis (PO3 Abesamis), and Police Senior Inspector
(PSI) Karen Palacios, as well as documentary evidence, which included
the print-out of the private messages among private complainant,
petitioner, and Alyanna Cassandra (Alyanna).[7] Taken together, the prosecution’s evidence established the facts recited below.
On December 23, 2010, petitioner, using the Facebook account name Indho Than, sent Alyanna a private message by way of Facebook
Messenger, threatening to post provocative photos of her friend,
private complainant. Alyanna immediately contacted private complainant.
Using Alyanna’s Facebook account, private complainant sent a
private message to petitioner, asking him to take down the fake Facebook
account with her photo as profile. Instead of doing what private
complainant requested, petitioner threatened private complainant that he
would make a public post on Facebook of her private and post-coital photos with her partner.[8]
From December 24 to 27, 2010, private complainant and petitioner
exchanged a series of private messages, where the former begged the
latter not to release her photos because a lot of people would be
affected. In desperation, private complainant told petitioner that she
would do anything to get back her photos. Petitioner then told her that
he would delete all the photos in his possession and take down her fake
Facebook account if she would agree to have sex with him. Private
complainant replied that she would not have sex with petitioner but she
could give him P5,000.00. Petitioner agreed but told her that he wanted
to meet her in an apartelle. They agreed to meet at McDonald’s Fastfood
(McDonald’s) in Walter Mart, Dasmarifias City on December 30, 2010,
where private complainant would hand to petitioner P5,000.00 in exchange
for the memory card containing the private photos and that they would
then go to Quatro Pasos Apartelle together.[9]
On December 28, 20l0, private complainant told her mother that someone was blackmailing her on Facebook.
The two went to Dasmariñas City Police Station to ask for assistance.
The police immediately created a team to conduct an entrapment operation
against petitioner.[10]
In the morning of December 30, 2010, as agreed with petitioner,
private complainant went to McDonald’s. Petitioner approached her and
introduced himself as the one private complainant was exchanging private
messages with. He brought out his cellular phone and showed private
complainant the contents of the memory card inserted therein. After
verifying that the memory card indeed contained her private photos,
private complainant handed to petitioner an envelope containing the
marked money amounting to P5,000.00. Petitioner counted the money in
front of private complainant before removing his phone’s memory card and
giving it to the latter. Private complainant then removed her glasses
to alert the entrapment team, who then rushed to the scene and
immediately arrested petitioner. Afterwards, the entrapment team brought
petitioner to Dasmarifias City Police Station.[11]
For his part, petitioner vehemently denied the charge against him.
He claimed that he went to McDonald’s to buy food. He saw private
complainant thereat whom he recognized as a schoolmate in high school.
He then approached private complainant and told her, “Your face looks
familiar.”[12] He left her
alone and sat on a table near hers. While eating, petitioner felt the
urge to urinate so he went to the toilet and left his bag on the table.
When he returned, petitioner noticed that his bag was open. He looked
inside his bag and saw an envelope. He examined the contents of his bag,
which included two (2) or three (3) memory cards containing his family
photos. Without any warning, a man handcuffed him and that man
introduced himself as a police officer. Afraid of the police officer,
petitioner followed whatever they asked him to do. He was then brought
to Dasmarifias City Police Station.[13]
Ruling of the RTC
In a Decision[14] dated
November 12, 2015, the RTC found petitioner guilty beyond reasonable
doubt of the crime charged, ruling that all the elements of Robbery by
means of Intimidation of Persons were present.
Aggrieved, petitioner appealed to the CA.
Ruling of the CA
In the now assailed Decision[15]
dated August 30, 2017, the CA affirmed with the modification the
Decision of the RTC. The CA agreed with the RTC that petitioner is
guilty beyond reasonable doubt of Robbery by means of Intimidation of
Persons under Article 293 of the RPC. TheCA pointed out that all the
elements of the crime charged were proven through the intelligible,
candid, and unwavering testimony of private complainant, which was
corroborated in all material points by PO3 Lorenzo and PO3 Abesamis
insofar as the entrapment operation was concerned. The CA also noted
that private complainant had no motive to testify falsely against
petitioner. The CA brushed aside the argument of petitioner that there
was no proof that he and Indho Than, the person private
complainant was conununicating with on Facebook, were one and the same
person. The CA held that private complainant clearly and categorically
stated on the witness stand that petitioner approached her and
introduced himself as the one she was talking to on Facebook. She
also positively identified him in her testimony and pointed at him in
the court room. The CA also noted that petitioner had knowledge of the
private messages between Indho Than and private complainant and
that he was found in possession of the photos of private complainant.
Further, the CA stressed that the RTC was correct in characterizing the
crime conunitted as Robbery with Intimidation of Persons, explaining
that there was sufficient intimidation by petitioner on private
complainant in as much as his acts engendered the fear in the mind of
his victim and brought in a sense of mental distress in view of his
threat to publicly expose her private photos on Facebook. The CA,
however, deleted the award of exemplary damages since there was no
aggravating circumstance that attended the robbery.[16]
Dissatisfied with the Decision of the CA, petitioner filed a Motion for Reconsideration[17] but the same was denied in the now assailed Resolution [18] dated December 13, 2017. Hence, the instant petition.
The Petition and Arguments of the Parties
Petitioner submits that the prosecution failed to establish his guilt
beyond reasonable doubt in view of private complainant’s contradictory
statements in her judicial affidavit and in her court testimony as to
whether petitioner demanded money from private complainant or it was the
latter who offered money to him. According to petitioner, private
complainant’s contradictory statements make her an incredible witness.
In addition, petitioner argues that he should not be convicted of
Robbery with Intimidation of Persons since there was no “unlawful
taking” to speak of in this case as he did not demand any amount of
money from private complainant. Rather, it was private complainant who
offered money to him.[19]
Respondent People of the Philippines, through the Office of the
Solicitor General (OSG), counters that all the elements of the crime of
Robbery with Intimidation of Persons were established in this case. The
OSG also opines that the crime charged can be consummated regardless of
whether petitioner demanded P5,000.00 from private complainant. This
doest not change the fact that petitioner unlawfully took money from
private complainant after intimidating her.[20]
The Issue
The issue for the Court’s resolution is whether or not the CA
committed a reversible error in affirming the RTC’s Decision convicting
petitioner of the crime ofRobbery with Intimidation of Persons.
The Court’s Ruling
The petition is not meritorious.
The Court stressed in Cu v. Ventura:[21]
The Rules of Court requires that only questions of law
should be raised in petitions filed under Rule 45. This Court is not a
trier of facts. It will not entertain questions of fact as the factual
findings of the appellate courts are “final, binding[,] or conclusive on
the parties and upon this [c]ourt” when supported by substantial
evidence. Factual findings of the appellate courts will not be reviewed
nor disturbed on appeal to this court.x x x x
A question of fact requires this court to review the truthfulness or
falsity of the allegations of the parties. This review includes
assessment of the “probative value of the evidence presented.” There is
also a question of fact when the issue presented before this court is
the correctness of the lower courts’ appreciation of the evidence
presented by the parties.[22] (Citations omitted)
In this case, petitioner contends that he should not be convicted of
the crime charged because the prosecution’s witness, particularly
private complainant, is not credible for making contradictory or
inconsistent statements in her judicial affidavit and in her open court
testimony. Likewise, contrary to the findings of the CA and the RTC,
petitioner posits that the evidence of the prosecution failed to prove
that he demanded money from private complainant so as to constitute the
element of unlawful taking in the crime of Robbery with Intimidation of
Persons. Obviously, petitioner asks the Court to review and examine the
probative value of the evidence presented during the trial and the
factual findings ofthe CA and the RTC in seeking the Court’s reversal of
his judgment of conviction. Clearly, this is not the role of this Court
because the issue he presented is factual in nature. On this score, the
petition must fail.
The Court is not oblivious to the prevailing exceptions to the rule
prohibiting factual review in Rule 45 petitions. As declared in Active Wood Products Co., Inc., v. State Investment House, Inc.,[23] findings of fact by the CA may be passed upon and reviewed by the Court in the following instances, to wit:
(1) the conclusion is grounded on speculations, surmises or
conjectures; (2) the inference is manifestly mistaken, absurd or
impossible; (3) there is grave abuse of discretion; (4) the judgment is
based on misapprehension of facts; (5) the fmdings of fact are
conflicting; (6) there is no citation of specific evidence on which the
factual fmdings are based; (7) the fmdings of absence of facts are
contradicted by the presence of evidence on record; (8) the findings of
the CA are contrary to those of the trial court; (9) the CA manifestly
overlooked certain relevant and undisputed facts that, if properly
considered, would justify a different conclusion; (10) the fmdings of
the CA are beyond the issues of the case; and (11) such findings are
contrary to the admissions of both parties.[24]
Also, the above-mentioned exceptions similarly apply in petitions for
review filed before the Court involving civil, labor, tax, or criminal
cases.[25]
In the instant petltlon, however, none of the aforementioned
exceptions is present which would warrant a review of the factual
findings ofthe CA.
Contrary to the argument of petitioner, the CA did not commit grave
abuse of discretion in the appreciation of facts when it found that
petitioner demanded money from private complainant in exchange for the
memory card containing the latter’s private photos, which made him
liable for Robbery with Intimidation of Persons. It may be recalled that
petitioner originally demanded for private complainant to have sex with
him in exchange for the return of the private photos. Private
complainant refused and offered P5,000.00 instead. It must be stressed,
however, that private complainant’s counter-offer does not make it “with
her consent,” as the same was made as a result of petitioner’s existing
and continuing threat of posting the private photos on Facebook. It is
worthy to note that petitioner did not offer to voluntarily and
unconditionally return the photos of private complainant but instead
asked for something in exchange for him not to post the same on Facebook.
In effect, when petitioner accepted private complainant’s counter-offer
of P5,000.00 instead of sex, his demand was merely amended or changed
from sexual into a monetary one. Accordingly, it is not entirely wrong
for the RTC and the CA to conclude that, in the end, petitioner demanded
money in the amount of P5,000.00 from private complainant, which he
took at McDonald’s against private complainant’s consent. Concurrently,
the second element in the crime of Robbery with Intimidation of Persons
is present in this case -that there is unlawful taking of property
belonging to another. So is the fourth element of the crime charged
anent the presence of intimidation of persons, as petitioner’s threat to
post the subject private photos on Facebook if his demand is not
met produced fear in the mind of his victim, private complainant, so
that the latter was forced to give to petitioner the amount of
P5,000.00, against or without her consent.
Relatedly, and even if the Court is to review the testimony of
private complainant, she did not make contradictory and inconsistent
statements on the fact that petitioner demanded from her P5,000.00 in
exchange of her private photos and so as not to post the same publicly
on Facebook. As explained, she refused to accede to the original
demand of petitioner to have sex and offered money instead in the amount
of P5,000.00. Nonetheless, the acceptance of petitioner of the money
effectively amended his demand into a monetary one. Thus, it was not
entirely inconsistent or contradictory at all for private complainant to
say that she counter-offered to give petitioner P5,000.00 instead of
having sex with him while also saying that petitioner demanded P5,000.00
from her. At any rate, even if the Court is to consider the statements
of private complainant to be inconsistent, the same only refers to a
minor detail, which will not impinge on the integrity of private
complainant’s testimony in its material whole. As astutely observed by
the OSG, the issue of whether the amount of P5,000.00 was offered or
demanded by petitioner is irrelevant in the prosecution against him for
the crime of Robbery with Intimidation of Persons. It does not change
the fact that unlawful taking occurred as a result of petitioner’s use
of intimidation on private complainant. As the Court consistently held,
“[i]nconsistencies on minor details do not impair the credibility of the
witnesses where there is consistency in relating the principal
occurrence and positive identification of the assailant.”[26] Such inconsistencies reinforce, rather than weaken, credibility.[27]
WHEREFORE, the Petition is DENIED. The Decision dated
August 30, 2017 and the Resolution dated December 13, 2017 of the Court
of Appeals in CA-G.R. CR No. 39019, affirming the Decision dated
November 12, 2015 of the Regional Trial Court of Imus, Cavite, Branch
21, in Criminal Case No. 8293-11 finding petitioner Journey Kenneth Asay Ambulo guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of Robbery with Intimidation of Persons is hereby AFFIRMED.
SO ORDERED.
Leonen, J, (Chairperson), Hernando, and Inting, JJ., concur.
Rosario, J., on official leave.
[1] Rollo. pp. 12-30.
[2] Penned by Associate
Justice Ramon R. Garcia, with Associate Justices Edwin D. Sorongon and
Victoria Isabel A. Paredes, concurring; id. at 32-47.
[3] Id. at 49-50.
[4] Penned by Executive Judge Norberto J. Quisumbing, Jr.; id. at 62-67.
[5] Id. at 33.
[6] Also referred to as Erica Dela Cruz Varias and Joyce Erica Dela Cruz Varias in some parts of the rollo.
[7] Rollo, p. 34.
[8] Id.
[9] Id at 34-35.
[10] Id at 35-36.
[11] Id. at 36.
[12] Id. at 36-37, 63.
[13] Id. at 37.
[14] Id. at 62-67.
[15] Id. at 32-47.
[16] Id. at 41-46.
[17] Id. at 75-80.
[18] Id. at 49-50.
[19] Id. at 19-22.
[20] Id. at 111-112.
[21] G.R. No. 224567, September 26, 2018.
[22] Id.
[23] G.R. No. 240277, October 14, 2020.
[24] Id., citing Carbonell v. Carbonell-Mendes, 762 Phil. 529, 537 (2015).
[25] Cu v. Ventura, supra note 21.
[26] People v. Alfon, 447 Phil. 138 (2003).
[27] Id.