TL;DR

The Supreme Court affirmed that using the internet to threaten someone and demand money in exchange for not publishing private photos constitutes robbery under Philippine law, specifically simple robbery as enhanced by the Cybercrime Prevention Act of 2012. This means that even if the threat and demand occur online, and the intimidation is exerted through digital means, it is still considered robbery if the other elements of the crime are present. The decision clarifies that cybercriminals who use online platforms to extort money can be prosecuted and penalized more severely due to the use of technology in committing the crime.

From Lost Phone to Online Extortion: Is Digital Threat Robbery?

This case revolves around Robert Masangkay who was convicted of simple robbery in relation to the Cybercrime Prevention Act. The charges stemmed from an incident where Masangkay, using the alias “Rolly Gatmaitan” on Facebook, contacted a minor, AAA261156, after finding nude photos on a lost cellphone. He threatened to post these photos online unless he received PHP 20,000. This demand was made through Facebook Messenger, an online messaging application. The legal question before the Supreme Court was whether this act of online intimidation and demand for money constituted robbery, particularly in the context of cybercrime legislation.

The Revised Penal Code (RPC) defines robbery, in Article 294, as a crime against property committed with violence or intimidation against persons. Specifically, paragraph 5 addresses simple robbery, prescribing penalties for robbery without the aggravating circumstances of paragraphs 1 to 4. The elements of simple robbery are well-established in Philippine jurisprudence: (a) personal property belonging to another; (b) unlawful taking of that property; (c) intent to gain; and (d) intimidation of persons. In this case, the prosecution argued that Masangkay’s actions met these elements, especially considering the intimidation exerted through online threats. The Cybercrime Prevention Act of 2012, or RA 10175, further complicates this scenario. Section 6 of this Act dictates that crimes under the RPC, when committed using information and communications technologies, are subject to penalties one degree higher than those originally prescribed.

The Regional Trial Court (RTC) and the Court of Appeals (CA) both found Masangkay guilty of simple robbery. They reasoned that the prosecution successfully demonstrated all elements of the crime. The RTC highlighted the identification of Masangkay as the person who picked up the marked money during the entrapment operation and his unexplained possession of the victim’s cellphone. The CA affirmed this, emphasizing the circumstantial evidence pointing to Masangkay as the perpetrator of the online extortion. The Supreme Court agreed with the lower courts’ findings. Justice M. Lopez, writing for the Second Division, reiterated the elements of simple robbery and affirmed their presence in Masangkay’s actions. The Court emphasized Masangkay’s demand for money under the threat of exposing private photos as clear intent to gain and intimidation. The Court further clarified that unlawful taking is complete upon gaining possession, regardless of disposal.

Masangkay challenged the credibility of witnesses and denied being “Rolly Gatmaitan.” However, the Supreme Court upheld the factual findings of the lower courts, citing the principle that trial courts are in the best position to assess witness credibility. Furthermore, the Court pointed to the recovery of the victim’s cellphone from Masangkay as strong evidence linking him to the crime. This aligns with the evidentiary rule in the Rules of Court, Rule 131, sec. 3(j), which states that possession of recently wrongfully taken items implies the possessor is the taker.

Regarding the penalty, the Supreme Court corrected the lower courts’ application of RA 10175. While agreeing that the Cybercrime Act applied due to the use of Facebook Messenger, the Court clarified the proper penalty enhancement. Simple robbery under Article 294(5) RPC carries a penalty of prision correccional maximum to prision mayor medium. Section 6 of RA 10175 mandates raising the penalty by one degree. Thus, the correct enhanced penalty should be prision mayor maximum to reclusion temporal medium. Applying the Indeterminate Sentence Law, the Supreme Court modified the sentence to imprisonment of eight years and one day of prision mayor as minimum, to 12 years, five months, and 11 days of reclusion temporal as maximum. This adjustment reflects a more precise application of both the Revised Penal Code and the Cybercrime Prevention Act.

FAQs

For inquiries regarding the application of this ruling to specific circumstances, please contact Atty. Gabriel Ablola through gaboogle.com or via email at connect@gaboogle.com.

Disclaimer: This analysis is provided for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. For specific legal guidance tailored to your situation, please consult with a qualified attorney.
Source: Masangkay v. People, G.R No. 261156, August 23, 2023