SECOND DIVISION

[G.R. No. 255583. August 2, 2023.]

AXEL TRIA y CIPRIANO, petitioner, vs. PEOPLE

OF THE PHILIPPINES, respondent.

DECISION

LAZARO-JAVIER, J : p

The Case
This Petition for Review 1 on Certiorari under Rule 45
assails the Decision 2 dated January 10, 2020 of the Court of
Appeals in CA-G.R. CR No. 42776, affirming the conviction of
petitioner Axel Tria y Cipriano for robbery with violence
against or intimidation of persons (robbery) under Article
294 of the Revised Penal Code, and Resolution 3 dated
December 15, 2020, denying reconsideration.
Antecedents
Under two separate Informations, petitioner Axel Tria y
Cipriano (Tria) was charged with robbery and online libel,
respectively, viz.:
Criminal Case No. 13300
That on or about the 24th day of August 2015, in
the City of _____________, Philippines, and within the
jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named
accused, by means of intimidation and with intent to
gain, did then and there willfully, unlawfully and
feloniously demand, take, and extort money from, and
belonging to [AAA], 4 in the sum of Fifteen Thousand
(P15,000.00) Pesos, Philippine Currency, in exchange
for his deleting of her nude photos which he (the
accused) posted and/or uploaded in the internet, or on
Facebook, to the damage and prejudice of said AAA, in
the aforementioned amount.
That the act was committed by, through, and with
the use of information and communications
technologies, as defined under Section 3 R.A. 10175.
TIADCc

ACTS CONTRARY TO LAW. 5

Criminal Case No. 13301

That sometime in August 2015 or prior thereto, in
the City of __________, Philippines, and within the
jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named
accused, with malice and intent to cast dishonor,
 discredit and contempt upon the person of [AAA] by
hacking her Facebook account "______________" which
the latter owns for the purpose of her business
advertisement online accompanied with caption and/or
words defamatory to her character and reputation as a
private person, to wit: "Ang makating babae ng
_______________ [AAA]," thereby offending her good
name, character and reputation, to her damage and
prejudice.ETHIDa

CONTRARY TO LAW. 6

On arraignment, Tria pleaded not guilty to both charges.

The cases were then consolidated and jointly tried. 7
Version of the Prosecution
Private complainant AAA testified that she and Tria were
lovers. Their relationship was blissful for the first six months
but it turned sour when he became jealous and started to
treat her differently. To appease him, she gave him the
password to her Facebook account. 8 This, however, proved
futile, as his behavior worsened and he even became abusive.
One time, he texted her son: "Yung Mama mu malandi,
makati, andami daming lalake, puta, manyak" He also sent
her indecent and vulgar words like "puta ka," "malandi,
"maharot," "magpakantot ka na," and "parausan ka ng _____."
He, too, threatened to upload their photos and sex video on
the Internet to humiliate her and her family. 9
When she had enough, she tried to break up with him
but the latter got furious; he took out his gun and showed her
their sex video and some of her pictures. She asked him to
delete the files which he promised to do. 10
On August 12, 2015, Tria asked her for PHP55,000.00,
but she refused as she did not have that much. This prompted
him to hack into her online business Facebook page "_________
Buy and Sell," and change her username and password to
prevent her from accessing the account. 11
On August 23, 2015, her sister told her to check her
Facebook page. Using her sister's account, she saw that her
half-naked photo was uploaded therein with the caption "AAA
malibog Malate." The photo was a screenshot of the video
which Tria showed her when they had a fight. Aside from this,
there was another photo of a naked woman with AAA's face
superimposed thereon. 12
She confronted Tria about the pictures. In response, he
offered to delete them in exchange for the payment of the
PHP55,000.00 he demanded earlier, for her to stay with him
in a hotel for three days, and for them to reconcile as if
nothing had happened. She verbally acceded to his demands,
and the photos were taken down for some time. Later,
however, the photos were re-uploaded when AAA stopped
responding to Tria's texts and calls. 13
Tria kept demanding PHP55,000.00 but she responded
that she only had PHP20,000.00. He told her to give him
PHP15,000.00 while the remaining PHP5,000.00 would be for
their hotel expenses. Because of Tria's continued demands,
she reported the matter to the Criminal Investigation and
Detection Group (CIDG) Anti-Cybercrime Group at Camp
Simeon A. Ola. 14
The CIDG Anti-Cybercrime Group prepared an
entrapment operation on the day she was set to meet Tria at
Gaisano Mall supposedly to accede to his demands. When
they met, he asked her if the money was ready and if she had
already chosen a hotel. She replied in the affirmative. He then
asked for the PHP15,000.00. After she handed him the money,
she removed her watch, signaling the CIDG to rush in and
arrest him. 15 ATICcS

Expert witness cybercrime investigator Senior Police

Officer 2 Carlo Benavente (SPO2 Benavente) testified that he
performed forensic examination on the two cellphones
confiscated from Tria and the three cellphones used by AAA.
He used a special software called Cellebrite to extract and
save unalterable versions of call logs and text messages. The
software, however, did not work flawlessly with the gadgets
involved; thus, he had to manually encode a bulk of the
messages by handwriting them. 16
He corroborated AAA's narration through the messages
he processed and from what he overheard from AAA's
conversation with Tria over the phone when she called him. 17
Version of the Defense
Tria denied the accusations and gave a different version,
18 thus:
In March 2014, he met AAA through the online dating
site "OK Cupid." Eventually, their friendly relation grew
romantic and they became lovers. They were aware of each
other's marital status even at the onset of their illicit affair. 19
Their romance developed further and became more
daring as they would even document their sexual rendezvous
on separate occasions. During those times, AAA would take
pictures especially while they were naked in bed. It was also
AAA herself who would take videos of their sexual intercourse
as she enjoyed watching them after coitus. She would send
these files to his phone, but he would immediately delete
them for fear that his wife would discover the affair. 20
They broke up in July 2015, and contrary to AAA's claim,
he was actually the one who broke off the relationship
because she became possessive. She demanded so much from
him; she even asked him to marry her in Hong Kong, and
prepared the necessary documents. She also became very
jealous of his wife to the point that during one of their
clandestine meetings, AAA shot him using his own gun. The
injury nearly killed him and he even needed medical
treatment from ______________ Hospital in __________ City. Due
to his affection for her, however, he let the incident go and no
longer filed charges against her. 21
He never sent her any threatening messages, let alone
contacted her after their breakup. His mistake was agreeing
to help her when she got in touch with him in August 2015.
She called him and asked for his help in looking for a
boarding house because she was supposedly being evicted
from their home in __________. For old time's sake, he agreed
to help her because he thought she was really in distress. It
was then that they agreed to meet at Gaisano Mall in
_____________ where the so-called entrapment operation was
conducted. 22
He never asked AAA for money. The money found in his
possession was strategically handed to him by AAA, saying
that she might lose it since she did not have a bag with her.
He even refused at first considering that they were inside the
mall, where it was relatively safe. But she insisted. When he
obliged and took the purse, however, he was immediately
arrested. 23
Ruling of the Trial Court
By Joint Judgment 24 dated November 19, 2018, the
Regional Trial Court-Branch 6, __________ City found Tria
guilty of robbery but acquitted him of online libel for lack of
evidence, thus:
In the charge of online libel in Criminal Case No.
13301, the Court so holds that the charge as spelled
out in the Information and the evidence presented by
the prosecution to prove the same is at a variance such
that the right of the accused-Axel Tria y Cipriano to be
informed of the nature and cause of the accusation
against him may have been violated, thus, he cannot be
convicted of the charge of online libel vis-à-vis the
evidence presented by the prosecution. aDSIHc

Recall that the Information for the charge of

online libel accuses Axel of committing the pertinent
facts as follows; "That sometime on August 2015 or
prior thereto Axel Tria y Cipriano [AAA], did then and
there willful1y, x x x, post/upload nude photos of
[AAA] by hacking her Facebook account
"_______________," which the latter owns for the
purpose of her business advertisements online
accompanied with caption and/or words
defamatory to her character and reputation as a
private person, to wit: "Ang makating babae ng
__________ City [AAA]," x x x (Emphasis and italics in
the original)
xxx xxx xxx
In the Information for libel Axel is accused of
having hacked the Facebook account of [AAA] called
_______________ on which account Axel allegedly
uploaded the nude photo of a woman with the face of
[AAA] having been superimposed or photoshopped on
the face of the unknown nude woman.
The evidence however of the prosecution tends to
establish that this piece of evidence. . . These photos
however cannot be considered as having libeled [AAA]
since what the Information alleges to have libeled her
is the add photoshopped nude photos uploaded on
______ _______. Had the Information charging libel
alleged that Axel uploaded/re-uploaded the nude
photos . . . at _______________ or had the Information
charged Axel having uploaded/re-uploaded [AAA]'s
photoshopped nude picture with the caption "Ang
Makating Babae ng __________ City [AAA] Malate" at
_______________, it would have suffice[d] to secure a
conviction of Axel. The prosecution however confused
the two (2) Facebook accounts and the proper libelous
nude photographs posted on the correct Facebook
account, respectively.
xxx xxx xxx
As for the charge however of Robbery With
Violence Against or Intimidation of Persons or
Extortion, the Court finds the evidence adduced by the
prosecution sufficient to convict Axel beyond
reasonable doubt of the charge. x x x
xxx xxx xxx
WHEREFORE, in the light of the foregoing
ratiocinations, the Court hereby renders judgment,
thus:
1) In Criminal Case No. 13300, the
accused[,] Axel Tria y Cripriano[,] is
found GUILTY beyond reasonable
doubt of the crime of Robbery with
Intimidation of Person/Extortion
defined and penalized under Article
294, par. 5 of the Revised Penal Code
in relation with Section 6 of R.A. 10175
or the Cybercrime Prevention Act of
2012 and he is hereby sentenced to an
indeterminate imprisonment of SIX (6)
YEARS as the MINIMUM to ELEVEN
(11) YEARS, ONE (1) MONTH and
ELEVEN (11) DAYS as the
MAXIMUM. No pronouncement as to
civil liability in view of the recovery of
the money taken.
 2) In Criminal Case No. 13301, the
accused[,] Axel Tria y Cipriano[,] is
ACQUITTED for lack of evidence in
view of the violation of the right of the
accused to be informed of the nature
and cause of accusation against him.
Costs against the accused.
SO ORDERED. 25

In acquitting Tria of the crime of online libel, the trial

court pointed out that there was a discrepancy between the
allegations in the Information and the evidence adduced
during the trial. As for the charge of robbery, on the other
hand, it found that the prosecution established all the
elements of the crime beyond reasonable doubt. HEITAD

Ruling of the Court of Appeals 26

Under Decision 27 dated January 10, 2020, the Court of

Appeals affirmed. It held that Tria committed robbery when
he threatened AAA and demanded that she pay him
PHP55,000.00 in exchange for the deletion of her nude photos
which he had posted online.
AAA positively identified Tria as the one who sent her
text messages demanding PHP55,000.00 in exchange for
taking down incriminating pictures of her on the Facebook
page of her business. SPO2 Benavente corroborated AAA's
claim. He was able to extract the contents of the text
messages between AAA and Tria. He, too, overheard one of
AAA's phone conversations with Tria while they were still
planning the entrapment operation.
The Court of Appeals denied reconsideration on
December 15, 2020. 28
Present Petition
Tria now seeks affirmative relief and prays anew for a
verdict of acquittal. 29
First. He faults the courts below for giving credence to
the testimony of SPO2 Benavente despite the latter's failure
to exert due diligence in ascertaining the identity of the
person who was allegedly threatening AAA; SPO2 Benavente
simply relied on AAA's misrepresentations. He did not even
ask AAA to put the call on loudspeaker as to allow the
entrapment team to hear for themselves both sides of the
conversation and confirm the identity of the caller. At any
rate, his phone logs show that he only made one call to AAA
which lasted 00:00, meaning the call did not get through. 30
Second. The integrity of the text messages allegedly
extracted by SPO2 Benavente is highly questionable. As SPO2
Benavente admitted, bulk of the text messages were
"physically extracted," i.e., manually copied from the cellular
phone. It took the cybercrime team about two days to
allegedly transcribe said texts. During this two-day period, it
was possible that the phone seized from him (Tria) had been
tampered and its contents, altered to suit the case of the
prosecution. 31
Third. There was no "unlawful taking of property with
intent to gain." AAA voluntarily handed him PHP15,000.00
and asked him to hold on to it because she feared she might
misplace it as she was not carrying a bag. 32
Verily, the prosecution failed to establish the identity of
the person harassing AAA, as well as the elements of robbery
to a moral certainty.DETACa

In its Comment, 33 the People, through the Office of the

Solicitor General, argues that the Petition must be denied for
raising questions of fact. It maintains that the Court of
Appeals correctly convicted Tria of robbery. Too, the Office of
the Solicitor General points out that Tria failed to attach
copies of the material and relevant portions of the records to
support his Petition. 34
Our Ruling
At the outset, the Court notes that Tria only attached the
assailed dispositions of the Court of Appeals to the present
Petition for Review, nothing more. Worse, the verification and
certification of non-forum shopping attached to the Petition is
a mere scanned copy. Finally, the affidavit of service lacks
proof of the affiant's identity. Under the rules, these
procedural defects already warrant the outright dismissal of
the Petition.
In any event, a petition for review on certiorari is
narrowly confined to any of these two grounds, i.e., (a) when
the court a quo has decided a question of substance, not
theretofore determined by the Supreme Court, or has decided
it in a way probably not in accord with law or with the
applicable decisions of the Supreme Court; or (b) when the
court a quo has so far departed from the accepted and usual
course of judicial proceedings, or so far sanctioned such
departure by a lower court, as to call for an exercise of the
power of supervision. 35
Absent any of these grounds cited or shown in the
Petition, there is no special reason to warrant the exercise of
the Court's discretionary appellate jurisdiction here. This is
an additional reason for the outright dismissal of the Petition.
But even on the merits, the Petition must fail.
Robbery with violence against or intimidation of persons
is defined and penalized under Article 294 of the Revised
Penal Code, viz.:
 Article 294. Robbery with violence against or
intimidation of persons; Penalties. — Any person guilty
of robbery with the use of violence against or
intimidation of any person shall suffer:
xxx xxx xxx
5. The penalty of prision correccional in its maximum
period to prision mayor in its medium period in other
cases.
Since the Information charging Tria with robbery did not
allege any resultant death or bodily injury, Article 249 (5)
governs. It requires that: (a) there is personal property
belonging to another; (b) that there is unlawful taking of that
property; (c) the taking is with intent to gain; and (d) there is
violence against or intimidation of persons. 36
Here, Tria demanded from AAA PHP55,000.00 in
exchange for the deletion of her nude photos posted on her
Facebook page. She haggled until Tria agreed to reduce it to
PHP20,000.00, PHP15,000.00 of which would be given to Tria
while the remaining PHP5,000.00 would pay for their hotel
expenses. AAA reported the matter to the CIDG Anti-
Cybercrime Group which arranged an entrapment operation
against Tria. During the operation, AAA met with Tria at
Gaisano Mall and handed him PHP15,000.00 as agreed,
resulting in Tria's arrest.aScITE

Clearly, AAA was forced to part with her money in

exchange for the deletion of her nude photos posted on her
Facebook page. Her compromising photos damaged and
continued to damage her family life, reputation, and online
business; thus, she felt she had no choice but to accede to
Tria's demands. The taking was deemed complete the moment
Tria gained possession of her money. Meanwhile, Tria's intent
to gain is presumed.
Tria nevertheless assails the credibility of SPO2
Benavente and the text messages retrieved from his phone.
But the factual findings of trial courts on matters of credibility
are accorded great weight and respect especially when
affirmed by the Court of Appeals, as here.
At any rate, SPO2 Benavente's testimony regarding the
phone conversation he overheard pertained to independently
relevant statements, hence, admissible in evidence. 37 Too, it
bears stressing that Tria's identity was not established
through the testimony of SPO2 Benavente alone, but also
through AAA's personal account.
As for Tria's denial of his authorship of the text
messages demanding payment from AAA, this is easily
negated by the fact that he showed up at Gaisano Mall as
agreed upon between AAA and the person who made the
demand.
 All told, the courts below did not err in finding Tria
guilty of robbery through force and intimidation against
persons.
Penalty
Robbery with violence against or intimidation of persons
under Article 294 (5) of the Revised Penal Code is punishable
by prision correccional in its maximum period to prision
mayor in its medium period. Considering, however, that the
crime was committed with the use of communication
technologies as alleged in the Information, the imposable
penalty is raised by one degree higher or prision mayor in its
maximum period to reclusion temporal in its medium period
in accordance with Section 6, Republic Act No. 10175 or the
Cybercrime Prevention Act, thus:
Section 6. All crimes defined and penalized by the
Revised Penal Code, as amended, and special laws, if
committed by, through and with the use of information
and communications technologies shall be covered by
the relevant provisions of this Act: Provided, That the
penalty to be imposed shall be one (1) degree higher
than that provided for by the Revised Penal Code, as
amended, and special laws, as the case may be.
Applying the Indeterminate Sentence Law, 38 Tria's
minimum sentence of six years of prision correccional was
correctly taken from the range of the penalty next lower in
degree or prision correccional in its maximum period to
prision mayor in its medium period. 39
In view, however, of the use of communication
technologies in the commission of the crime, the imposable
penalty is raised one degree higher, and Tria's maximum
sentence should be taken anywhere from the range of 12
years, five months, and 11 days to 14 years, 10 months, and
20 days. CAIHTE

ACCORDINGLY, the Petition is DENIED. The Decision

dated January 10, 2020 and Resolution dated December 15,
2020 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CR No. 42776, are
AFFIRMED with MODIFICATION.
Petitioner AXEL TRIA y CIPRIANO is found GUILTY of
ROBBERY WITH VIOLENCE AGAINST OR
INTIMIDATION OF PERSONS. He is sentenced to the
indeterminate penalty of SIX YEARS of prision correccional,
as minimum, to 14 YEARS of reclusion temporal, as
maximum. HTcADC

SO ORDERED.
Leonen, M.V. Lopez, J.Y. Lopez and Kho, Jr., JJ., concur.

Footnotes
1. Rollo, pp. 14-38.
2. Penned by Associate Justice Rafael Antonio M. Santos, and
concurred in by Associate Justices Manuel M. Barrios
and Geraldine C. Fiel-Macaraig, of the Special Sixteenth
Division, Court of Appeals, Manila; id. at 41-57.
3. Penned by Associate Justice Rafael Antonio M. Santos, and
concurred in by Associate Justices Manuel M. Barrios
and Geraldine C. Fiel-Macaraig, of the Former Special
Sixteenth Division, Court of Appeals, Manila; id. at 65-
67.
4. In line with Amended Administrative Circular No. 83-2015,
as mandated by Section 29 of Republic Act No. 7610,
Section 44 of Republic Act No. 9262, and Section 40 of
A.C. No. 83-2015, the names of the private offended
parties, along with all other personal circumstances that
may tend to establish their identities, are made
confidential to protect their privacy.
5. Id. at 121-122.
6. Id. at 122.
7. Id. at 44.
8. Id.
9. Id.
10. Id.
11. Id. at 45.
12. Id.
13. Id.
14. Id.
15. Id. at 45-46.
16. Id. at 129.
17. Id. at 112-113.
18. Id. at 46-48.
19. Id. at 46.
20. Id.
21. Id. at 46-47.
22. Id. at 47.
23. Id. at 48.
24. Penned by Judge Elmer M. Lanuzo, of Branch 6, Regional
Trial Court, __________ City; id. at 120-147.
25. Id. at 133-147.
26. Pleadings filed before the Court of Appeals were not
attached to the petition.
 27. Rollo, pp. 41-57.
28. Id. at 65.
29. Id. at 14-38.
30. Id. at 20-28.
31.Id. at 28-31.
32. Id. at 32-34.
33. Id. at 96-118.
34. Id. at 103.
35. RULES OF COURT, Rule 45, Sec. 6 provides: Review
discretionary. — A review is not a matter of right, but of
sound judicial discretion, and will be granted only when
there are special and important reasons thereof. The
following, while neither controlling nor fully measuring
the court's discretion, indicate the character of the
reasons which will be considered:
(a) When the court a quo has decided a question of substance,
not theretofore determined by the Supreme Court, or has
decided it in a way probably not in accord with law or with the
applicable decisions of the Supreme Court; or
(b) When the court a quo has so far departed from the
accepted and usual course of judicial proceedings, or so far
sanctioned such departure by a lower court, as to call for an
exercise of the power of supervision.
36. Flores v. People, 830 Phil. 635, 645 (2018) [Per J.
Gesmundo, Third Division].
37. Buenaflor Car Services, Inc. v. David, Jr., 798 Phil. 195,
207 (2016) [Per J. Perlas-Bernabe, First Division].
38. Medina v. People, 724 Phil. 226, 232-233 (2014) [Per J.
Bersamin, First Division].
39. Prision correccional in its maximum period to prision
mayor in its medium period or four years, two months
and one day to eight years.
||| (Tria y Cipriano v. People, G.R. No. 255583, [August 2, 2023])