The Supreme Court (SC) has affirmed the conviction of a man for robbery with violence against or intimidation of persons for receiving P15,000 of the P55,000 he demanded from his ex-girlfriend for the deletion of her nude photos on social media.

However, the SC – in a decision written by Associate Justice Amy C. Lazaro-Javier in G.R. No. 255583 -- modified the jail term imposed by the Court of Appeals (CA) which affirmed the ruling of the trial court.

Instead of a jail term ranging from six years as minimum to 11 years, one month and 11 days as maximum, the SC modified it to six years as minimum to 14 years as maximum.

“In view, however, of the use of communication technologies in the commission of the crime, the imposable penalty is raised one degree higher, and Alex’s (not his real name) 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,” the SC said.

A summary of the decision issued by the SC’s public information office (PIO) stated that Alex was in a romantic relationship with AAA, the name designated by SC for the ex-girlfriend.

It said that when Alex became jealous, AAA gave him the password to her Facebook account to appease him. However, Alex threatened to upload their sex video and photos online. 

AAA tried to break up with Alex, but he took out his gun and showed her their sex video and some of her pictures. 

The PIO, quoting from the decision, said that Alex initially agreed to delete the files, but later demanded P55,000. When AAA refused to pay, Alex hacked her business Facebook page and changed her username and password to prevent her from accessing the account, it said. 

A few days later, AAA’s sister saw half-naked photos of the former on her Facebook page. The photo was a screenshot of the sex video Alex showed AAA. Another photo of a naked woman with AAA’s face superimposed was also uploaded. 

The PIO said that while Alex demanded P55,000 in exchange for deleting the photos, AAA said she could only give him P20,000. 

It said that Alex’s continued demands prompted AAA to report the matter to the Criminal Investigation and Detection Group (CIDG) Anti-Cybercrime Group of the Philippine National Police (PNP) which conducted an entrapment operation.

CIDG agents arrested Alex after he accepted the money from AAA. Alex was charged with robbery and online libel.

The regional trial court (RTC) found Alex guilty of robbery with violence against or intimidation of persons.  However, the RTC acquitted Alex of online libel for lack of evidence. The RTC’s rulings were affirmed by the CA. Alex elevated the case to the SC.

The SC said that Alex’s petition could be dismissed outright for procedural defects like merely attaching the CA decision and nothing more, only scanned copy of verification and certification of non-forum shopping was attached, and lack of proof of affiant’s identity in the affidavit of service.

It said that “even on the merits, the petition must fail.”

The SC also said: 

“Since the Information (criminal charge sheet) charging Alex 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. 

“Here, Alex demanded from AAA P55,000 in exchange for the deletion of her nude photos posted on her Facebook page. She haggled until Alex agreed to reduce it to P20,000, P15,000 of which would be given to Alex while the remaining P5,000 would pay for their hotel expenses. 

“AAA reported the matter to the CIDG Anti-Cybercrime Group which arranged an entrapment operation against Alex. During the operation, AAA met with Alex at (a mall) and handed him P15,000 as agreed, resulting in Alex’s arrest.

“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 Alex's demands. The taking was deemed complete the moment Alex gained possession of her money. Meanwhile, Alex’s intent to gain is presumed.

“Accordingly, the petition is denied. The decision Decision dated Jan. 10, 2020 and Resolution dated Dec. 15, 2020 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CR No. 42776, are affirmed with modification.”