BBB VS AAA

FACTS: BBB and AAA dated in 1993. AAA had a boy named CCC from a previous relationship. During
their marriage they bore two more children namely, [DDD] and [EEE] . [BBB] and [AAA] married civil rights on
October 10, 2002 and thereafter, the birth certificates of the children, including [CCC’s], was amended to change
their civil status to legitimated by virtue of the said marriage.

The relationship, both admit, was far from ideal and has had its share of happy moments and heated arguments.
[BBB] alleges that [AAA’s] irrational jealousy has caused their frequent arguments.. BBB left the family home and
soon after AAA decided to leave and brought the children. [AAA], on the other hand, alleges that their heated
arguments were often due to [BBB’s] incessant womanizing. The breaking point for [AAA] came when, [BBB’s]
alleged mistress, a woman by the name of [FFF], insulted and humiliated [AAA] in public, in the presence of [BBB]
himself, who, according to [AAA], did nothing to stop the same. BBB displayed acts of marital infidelity which exposed
AAA to public ridicule causing her emotional and psychological distress. While BBB alleged that FFF was only a
professional colleague, he continued to have public appearances with her which did not help to dispel AAA’s
accusation that the two had an extra-marital relation. Further, BBB verbally abused AAA either in person or through
text messages. AAA filed a Temporary Restraining Order, RTC granted the application and CA affirmed the decision
with modification.

ISSUE: Whether or not the unauthenticated text messages adduced by AAA is admissible.

HELD: BBB posits that the text messages offered by AAA as evidence were unauthenticated; hence, doubt exists as
to their admissibility The doubt raised by BBB anent the admissibility of the text messages as evidence is not
genuinely a legal issue. In the case of Justice Vidallon-Magtolis v. Salud, it is stated that any question as to the
admissibility of text messages as evidence is rendered moot and academic if the party raising such issue admits
authorship of the subject messages. The issue of admissibility of the text messages requires an interpretation of the
rules of evidence, this Court does not find the same to be necessary. While BBB had admitted authorship of the text
messages, he pleads for this Court to consider those messages as inadmissible for allegedly being unauthenticated.
BBB’s arguments are unbearably self-contradictory and he cannot be allowed to take refuge under technical rules of
procedure to assail what is already apparent.