The commission of robbery through the use of information and communications technologies, such as demanding money in exchange for deleting compromising photos posted online, subjects the offender to a penalty one degree higher than that provided for by the Revised Penal Code, pursuant to Section 6 of Republic Act No. 10175 (Cybercrime Prevention Act of 2012).

The case arose from a soured romantic relationship between petitioner Axel Tria y Cipriano (Tria) and private complainant AAA. After their relationship deteriorated, Tria allegedly posted nude photos of AAA online and demanded money from her in exchange for their deletion, leading to criminal charges for robbery and online libel.

• Petitioner Axel Tria y Cipriano (Tria) and private complainant AAA were former lovers. Their relationship soured, with Tria becoming jealous, abusive, and sending threatening messages.
• Tria hacked AAA's online business Facebook page, changing its username and password.
• On August 23, 2015, AAA discovered her half-naked photo uploaded on her Facebook page with a malicious caption, and another photo of a naked woman with AAA's face superimposed.
• Tria offered to delete the photos in exchange for PHP 55,000.00, for AAA to stay with him in a hotel for three days, and for them to reconcile. AAA verbally acceded.
• The photos were temporarily taken down but re-uploaded when AAA stopped responding to Tria's texts and calls.
• Tria continued demanding PHP 55,000.00, which was later negotiated down to PHP 20,000.00 (PHP 15,000.00 for Tria and PHP 5,000.00 for hotel expenses).
• AAA reported the matter to the Criminal Investigation and Detection Group (CIDG) Anti-Cybercrime Group, which prepared an entrapment operation.
• During the entrapment operation at Gaisano Mall, AAA handed PHP 15,000.00 to Tria, after which Tria was arrested by CIDG operatives.
• SPO2 Carlo Benavente, a cybercrime investigator, performed a forensic examination on cellphones confiscated from Tria and AAA, extracting call logs and text messages, some of which had to be manually encoded.

• The courts erred in giving credence to SPO2 Benavente's testimony, who allegedly failed to exert due diligence in ascertaining the identity of the person threatening AAA and merely relied on AAA's misrepresentations.
• The phone logs showed only one call from Tria to AAA lasting 00:00, indicating the call did not go through.
• The integrity of the text messages extracted by SPO2 Benavente was questionable as they were "physically extracted" (manually copied), and the phone could have been tampered with during the two-day transcription period.
• There was no unlawful taking of property with intent to gain, as AAA voluntarily handed the PHP 15,000.00 to him for safekeeping because she feared misplacing it, not due to intimidation.
• The prosecution failed to establish his identity as the person harassing AAA and the elements of robbery to a moral certainty.

• The Petition for Review should be denied for raising questions of fact, which are not proper for a Rule 45 petition.
• The Court of Appeals correctly convicted Tria of robbery.
• Tria failed to attach copies of material and relevant portions of the records to support his Petition.
• The factual findings of the trial court, especially when affirmed by the Court of Appeals, are accorded great weight and respect.
• All elements of robbery with intimidation were proven: AAA was forced to part with her money due to Tria's threats of continued public exposure of her nude photos, Tria gained possession of the money, and his intent to gain was presumed.
• SPO2 Benavente's testimony regarding the phone conversation he overheard was admissible as an independently relevant statement.
• Tria's identity was established not only by SPO2 Benavente's testimony but also by AAA's personal account and Tria's presence at the agreed meeting place for the money exchange.

• Whether the Court of Appeals erred in affirming Tria's conviction for robbery with violence against or intimidation of persons under Article 294 of the Revised Penal Code.
• Whether the penalty imposed by the lower courts was correct, considering the crime was committed with the use of information and communications technologies.

• The Supreme Court denied the petition and affirmed Tria's conviction for robbery with violence against or intimidation of persons, with modification of the penalty.
• The Court found that all elements of robbery under Article 294(5) of the Revised Penal Code were present: (a) personal property (money) belonging to AAA; (b) unlawful taking of that property by Tria; (c) intent to gain on Tria's part (presumed from the unlawful taking); and (d) intimidation of AAA (forcing her to part with her money in exchange for deleting her nude photos posted online, which damaged her reputation and family life).
• The Court upheld the factual findings of the trial court and the Court of Appeals regarding the credibility of witnesses and the occurrence of the events, noting that Tria's presence at the entrapment operation negated his denial of authorship of the demanding text messages.
• The Court ruled that SPO2 Benavente's testimony about the phone conversation he overheard was admissible as an independently relevant statement.
• The Court modified the penalty imposed. Since the robbery was committed with the use of information and communications technologies, Section 6 of R.A. 10175 (Cybercrime Prevention Act) mandates that the penalty shall be one degree higher than that provided by the Revised Penal Code.
• Applying the Indeterminate Sentence Law, the minimum term (six years of prision correccional) was correctly derived from the penalty next lower in degree. However, the maximum term was adjusted to reflect the one-degree increase, resulting in a sentence of six (6) years of prision correccional as minimum, to fourteen (14) years of reclusion temporal as maximum.

• Elements of Robbery with Intimidation (Article 294(5), Revised Penal Code) — This provision penalizes robbery committed with the use of violence against or intimidation of any person. The elements are: (a) there is personal property belonging to another; (b) 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. The Court found all these elements present, as Tria intimidated AAA into giving him money by threatening to keep her nude photos online.
• Intent to Gain (Animus Lucrandi) in Robbery — Intent to gain is an internal act presumed from the unlawful taking of personal property belonging to another. In this case, Tria's act of demanding and receiving money in exchange for deleting the photos established his intent to gain.
• Independently Relevant Statement — This refers to a statement whose probative value is independent of its truth or falsity; the fact that it was made is relevant. SPO2 Benavente's testimony about overhearing the phone conversation between AAA and Tria was deemed admissible as an independently relevant statement, establishing the fact of the conversation and its content as part of the planning for the entrapment.
• Factual Findings of Trial Courts — The factual findings of trial courts, especially on matters of credibility of witnesses, are accorded great weight and respect by appellate courts, particularly when affirmed by the Court of Appeals. This doctrine was applied to uphold the lower courts' assessment of AAA's and SPO2 Benavente's testimonies.
• Application of Section 6, R.A. 10175 (Cybercrime Prevention Act of 2012) — This section provides that for crimes defined and penalized by the Revised Penal Code, if committed by, through, and with the use of information and communications technologies, the penalty to be imposed shall be one (1) degree higher. The Court applied this to raise the penalty for Tria's robbery conviction because he used Facebook and text messages to perpetrate the crime.
• Indeterminate Sentence Law (Act No. 4103) — This law mandates the imposition of an indeterminate sentence for certain offenses, comprising a minimum term and a maximum term. The Court applied this law in determining the proper penalty for Tria, adjusting the maximum term due to the application of R.A. 10175.

• "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."
• "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."

• Flores v. People — Cited for the elements of robbery with intimidation under Article 294(5) of the Revised Penal Code.
• Buenaflor Car Services, Inc. v. David, Jr. — Cited in relation to the admissibility of SPO2 Benavente's testimony regarding the phone conversation he overheard as an independently relevant statement.
• Medina v. People — Cited in the context of applying the Indeterminate Sentence Law for determining the appropriate penalty.

• Article 294, par. 5 of the Revised Penal Code — Defines and penalizes robbery with violence against or intimidation of persons. This was the primary article under which Tria was charged and convicted.
• Section 6 of R.A. 10175 (Cybercrime Prevention Act of 2012) — Mandates that the penalty for crimes under the Revised Penal Code, if committed using information and communications technologies, shall be one degree higher. This was applied to increase the penalty imposed on Tria.
• Rule 45, Section 6 of the Rules of Court — Discusses the discretionary nature of a petition for review on certiorari and the grounds for granting it. The Court noted that Tria's petition raised factual questions and had procedural defects, but still proceeded to rule on the merits.
• Indeterminate Sentence Law (Act No. 4103) — Governs the imposition of penalties, requiring a minimum and maximum term. This was applied in calculating the final sentence for Tria.