THIRD DIVISION

[G.R. No. 236290. January 20, 2021.]

JOURNEY KENNETH ASA y AMBULO , petitioner, vs. PEOPLE OF

THE PHILIPPINES, respondent.

DECISION

DELOS SANTOS, J : p

Before the Court is a Petition for Review on Certiorari 1 under Rule 45

of the Rules of Court, assailing the Decision 2 dated August 30, 2017 and the
Resolution 3 dated December 13, 2017 of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-
G.R. CR No. 39019, which affirmed the Decision 4 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 fiancé,
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 Dela Cruz
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. HESIcT

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
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2021 cdasiaonline.com
 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,
Dasmariñas 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, 2010, 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 Dasmariñas 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,
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2021 cdasiaonline.com
 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 Dasmariñas
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. caITAC

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. The CA 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 communicating 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 committed 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
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2021 cdasiaonline.com
 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 does 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 of Robbery with Intimidation of Persons. ICHDca

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.
xxx xxx xxx
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 of the CA and
the RTC in seeking the Court's reversal of his judgment of conviction.
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2021 cdasiaonline.com
 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 findings of fact are
conflicting; (6) there is no citation of specific evidence on which the
factual findings are based; (7) the findings 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 findings 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 petition, however, none of the aforementioned
exceptions is present which would warrant a review of the factual findings of
the 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
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2021 cdasiaonline.com
 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. TCAScE

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 Asa y Ambulo guilty beyond
reasonable doubt of the crime of Robbery with Intimidation of Persons is
hereby AFFIRMED.
SO ORDERED.
Leonen, Hernando and Inting, JJ., concur.
Rosario, * J., is on official leave.

Footnotes
* 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.

CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2021 cdasiaonline.com

 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.

CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2021 cdasiaonline.com