Robert Catan y Masangkay vs. People of the Philippines

A person found in possession of a thing taken in the doing of a recent wrongful act is presumed to be the taker and the doer of the whole act under Rule 131, Section 3(j) of the Rules of Court. When robbery under Article 294(5) of the Revised Penal Code is committed through information and communications technologies, Section 6 of R.A. No. 10175 mandates that the penalty be imposed one degree higher than that provided by the Revised Penal Code. Unlawful taking is considered complete the moment the offender gains possession of the property, even without an opportunity to dispose of it.

On 18 September 2018, minor BBB261156 lost his Huawei Y7 cellphone while at a shopping mall with his minor girlfriend, AAA261156. Five days later, a Facebook user named “Rolly Gatmaitan” sent AAA261156 a message containing her nude pictures and videos. Claiming to have found the cellphone, the sender demanded PHP 20,000.00 in exchange for a guarantee not to post the materials on social media. The amount was later raised to PHP 30,000.00. The minors reported the incident to the police, resulting in an entrapment operation.

• The Charges: Petitioner Robert Catan y Masangkay was charged in three Informations: one for simple robbery in relation to Section 6 of R.A. No. 10175, and two for other acts of child abuse under Section 10(a) of R.A. No. 7610. The Informations alleged that, on 23 September 2018, petitioner, using a Facebook account under the name “Rolly Gatmaitan,” sent messages to minor AAA261156 through Facebook Messenger while in possession of minor BBB261156’s Huawei Y7 cellphone, gaining access to AAA261156’s nude photos and videos. He demanded PHP 20,000.00 under threat of posting the materials on social media.

• The Extortion: On 18 September 2018, BBB261156 lost his cellphone. Five days later, AAA261156 received Facebook messages from “Rolly Gatmaitan” containing her nude images. The sender claimed to have found the phone and demanded PHP 20,000.00. When the minors said they could not pay because they were students, the sender raised the demand to PHP 30,000.00 after discovering that BBB261156 came from a well-off family. The minors informed their parents and reported to the police.

• Entrapment Operation: PO2 Ronnee Jude Alba and PO1 Neil Aldrin Zacarias planned an entrapment operation. AAA261156 continued communicating with the perpetrator through Facebook Messenger. Rolly instructed her to bring the money alone to a corner in Malabon City at 7:00 p.m. and to place it in a red plastic bag on a trash can. Because there was no trash can, AAA261156 left the bag at the place where she was seated, then walked to the next street and hid.

• Arrest and Recovery: Within a minute, a man on a motorcycle arrived, took the plastic bag, and left. The police officers chased and apprehended him, later identified as petitioner Robert Catan y Masangkay. PO2 Alba recovered from petitioner’s possession the following: the red plastic bag containing the PHP 1,000.00 marked money (serial number BM418779 marked “RJA”), BBB261156’s silver Huawei Y7 cellphone, one Vivo cellphone, and the Yamaha Mio motorcycle used. The seized items were turned over to the case investigator, PO3 Michelle Ubuta.

• Witness Identification: BBB261156 testified that he was 15 to 20 meters from the drop-off point, saw AAA261156 leave the red plastic bag, and observed petitioner arrive by motorcycle, take the bag, and flee. He and the police officers gave chase and were certain that the person arrested was the same man who picked up the bag.

• Defense: Petitioner waived his right to present evidence.

• Lower Court Findings: The RTC acquitted petitioner of the two R.A. 7610 charges for failure of the prosecution to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt. However, it convicted him of simple robbery under Article 294(5) of the RPC in relation to Section 6 of R.A. No. 10175, sentencing him to an indeterminate penalty of eight years and one day of prision mayor as minimum to twelve years and one day of reclusion temporal as maximum. The CA affirmed.

• Identity of the Perpetrator: Petitioner argued that his identity as the person who extorted money through Facebook Messenger under the name “Rolly Gatmaitan” was not proven beyond reasonable doubt. He denied being Rolly Gatmaitan and contended that the prosecution’s evidence was insufficient to link him to the Facebook account and the demands.

• Credibility of Witnesses and Sufficiency of Evidence: Petitioner assailed the credibility of the prosecution witnesses and maintained that the prosecution failed to prove all elements of the crime charged, specifically the element of robbery.

The People of the Philippines, as respondent, did not present separate written arguments in the Supreme Court decision. The prosecution’s position at trial and on appeal was that: - Sufficiency of Circumstantial Evidence: The circumstantial evidence—the recovery of the marked money and BBB261156’s cellphone from petitioner immediately after the entrapment, the positive identification by the police and witness BBB261156, and petitioner’s unexplained possession of the phone—established his guilt beyond reasonable doubt. - Elements of Robbery Present: All elements of simple robbery were proven: the demand for money constituted intent to gain and intimidation; the taking was completed upon petitioner’s possession of the plastic bag; and the money belonged to the minors. - Penalty Enhancement: Proper application of Section 6 of R.A. No. 10175 was warranted because the extortion was committed through information and communications technologies.

• Identity of Perpetrator: Whether petitioner’s identity as the “Rolly Gatmaitan” who extorted money through Facebook Messenger and as the person who took the marked money was proven beyond reasonable doubt.
• Elements of Simple Robbery: Whether the prosecution established all elements of simple robbery under Article 294(5) of the Revised Penal Code, particularly the unlawful taking and intimidation of persons.
• Proper Penalty: Whether the lower courts correctly imposed the penalty under Section 6 of R.A. No. 10175 and applied the Indeterminate Sentence Law, given the enhancement by one degree for use of ICT.

• Identity of Perpetrator: The identity of petitioner as the perpetrator was sufficiently established. The factual findings of the trial court on witness credibility were entitled to the highest degree of respect and binding on appeal, absent any showing of misappreciation of facts. During the entrapment, petitioner was positively identified by BBB261156 and the police officers as the man who took the red plastic bag containing the marked money. Crucially, the Huawei Y7 cellphone belonging to BBB261156—the device that contained AAA261156’s nude pictures and videos—was recovered from petitioner upon his arrest. Under Rule 131, Section 3(j) of the Rules of Court, a person found in possession of a thing taken in the doing of a recent wrongful act is presumed to be the taker and the doer of the whole act. Petitioner’s unexplained possession of that cellphone thus gave credence to the conclusion that he was the same person who, as “Rolly Gatmaitan,” had extorted money from the minors.

• Elements of Simple Robbery: All elements of simple robbery were proven beyond reasonable doubt. Personal property (money) belonging to the minors existed. Unlawful taking was present: taking is complete the moment the offender gains possession of the thing, even without an opportunity to dispose of it; here, petitioner took possession of the red plastic bag containing the marked money. No exact amount need be proven as long as unlawful taking is established. Intent to gain and intimidation were evident from the demand for PHP 20,000.00 (later raised to PHP 30,000.00) coupled with the threat to post AAA261156’s nude pictures on social media if the amount was not paid. The essence of robbery by intimidation was satisfied because fear was instilled in the victims to compel them to part with their money.

• Proper Penalty: The lower courts correctly recognized that Section 6 of R.A. No. 10175 applied because the robbery was committed through the use of information and communications technologies—specifically, Facebook Messenger. Section 6 mandates a penalty one degree higher than that provided by the Revised Penal Code. The base penalty under Article 294(5) for simple robbery is prision correccional in its maximum period to prision mayor in its medium period. Raised by one degree, the penalty becomes prision mayor in its maximum period to reclusion temporal in its medium period. The RTC and CA, however, imposed an incorrect indeterminate sentence. Applying the Indeterminate Sentence Law, with no aggravating or mitigating circumstances, the minimum term should be taken from the range of prision correccional maximum to prision mayor medium (four years, two months and one day to ten years), while the maximum term should be taken from the medium period of the imposable penalty (twelve years, five months and eleven days to fourteen years, ten months and twenty days). The proper penalty was therefore eight years and one day of prision mayor as minimum, to twelve years, five months and eleven days of reclusion temporal as maximum.

• Possession of stolen property as evidence of guilt — Under Rule 131, Section 3(j) of the Rules of Court, a person found in possession of a thing taken in the doing of a recent wrongful act is presumed to be the taker and the doer of the whole act. This presumption was applied to link petitioner to the extortion, as he was caught with BBB261156’s cellphone containing the nude images used to threaten the victims.

• Completion of unlawful taking — In robbery, taking is considered complete from the moment the offender gains possession of the property, even if the offender has no opportunity to dispose of it. The exact amount taken need not be proven so long as there is proof of unlawful taking.

• Credibility findings of trial courts — On matters involving credibility of witnesses, the trial court’s assessment is entitled to the highest degree of respect and will not be disturbed on appeal, particularly when affirmed by the Court of Appeals, absent any showing that material facts were overlooked or misappreciated.

• Penalty enhancement under Section 6, R.A. No. 10175 — When a crime defined and penalized by the Revised Penal Code is committed by, through, and with the use of information and communications technologies, the penalty to be imposed shall be one degree higher than that provided for by the Revised Penal Code. The lower courts’ error consisted only in the computation of the indeterminate sentence; the applicability of the one-degree increase was correctly sustained.

• Indeterminate Sentence Law computation — In the absence of any modifying circumstance, the minimum term is taken from the penalty next lower in degree, anywhere within its full range, while the maximum term is taken from the medium period of the imposable penalty (one degree higher than the base penalty).

• “It is a well-settled rule that absent any evidence that the lower courts overlooked or misappreciated the facts, their factual findings on the witness' credibility are entitled to the highest degree of respect and will not be disturbed on appeal.” — This passage reaffirms the binding nature of trial court assessments of credibility, foundational to upholding the identification of petitioner.

• “Under the Rules of Court, a person found in possession of a thing taken in the doing of a recent wrongful act is the taker and the doer of the whole act.” — This excerpt encapsulates the dispositive presumption under Rule 131, Section 3(j) that anchored petitioner’s conviction.

• “Unlawful taking was also present in this case, even though Robert was immediately arrested after he took the red plastic bag containing the marked money. Verily, taking is considered complete the moment the offender gains possession of the thing, even if he or she did not have the opportunity to dispose of the same.” — This statement clarifies the doctrine that mere possession consummates the taking in robbery, crucial to the finding of guilt.

• Remolano v. People, G.R. No. 248682, 6 October 2021, First Division — Cited as the source enumerating the four elements of simple robbery under Article 294(5) of the RPC. Remolano in turn cited People v. Avancena, 810 Phil. 672 (2017), providing authoritative definition that the Court adopted.

• Poquiz v. People, G.R. No. 238715, 11 January 2021, Third Division — Relied upon for the rule that taking is complete upon the offender’s gaining possession of the thing and that the exact amount taken need not be proved as long as unlawful taking is established.

• People v. Eling, 576 Phil. 665 (2008), Third Division — Cited for the doctrine on credibility of witnesses, particularly the principle that trial court findings on credibility affirmed by the Court of Appeals are binding and conclusive on the Supreme Court.

• Article 294, paragraph 5, Revised Penal Code — Defines simple robbery with violence against or intimidation of persons and prescribes the penalty of prision correccional in its maximum period to prision mayor in its medium period. The Court applied this as the base offense.

• Section 6, Republic Act No. 10175 (Cybercrime Prevention Act of 2012) — Provides that all crimes defined and penalized by the RPC and special laws, if committed by, through, and with the use of information and communications technologies, shall be covered by the relevant provisions of the Act, and the penalty to be imposed shall be one degree higher. This provision was applied to increase the penalty by one degree because the extortion was perpetrated via Facebook Messenger.

• Rule 131, Section 3(j), Rules of Court — Establishes the disputable presumption that a person found in possession of a thing taken in the doing of a recent wrongful act is the taker and the doer of the whole act. The Court invoked this presumption to link petitioner to the extortion as the person who possessed BBB261156’s cellphone.

• Indeterminate Sentence Law (Act No. 4103, as amended) — Applied to fix the minimum and maximum terms of the indeterminate sentence. The minimum fell within the range of the penalty next lower in degree, while the maximum was taken from the medium period of the enhanced penalty.

Leonen, SAJ (Chairperson), Lazaro-Javier, J. Lopez, and Kho, Jr., JJ., concurred.

None.