GR No.

182385

Rustan Ang y Pascua (Petitioner) vs CA and Irish Sagud (Respondents)

Facts
Rustan was accused as in violation of Republic Act (RA) 9262 or the Anti-Violence against Womand and
their Children Act.

Rustan and Irish had an “on-and-off” relationship. When Irish learned that Rustan has a live-in partner
whom he later married, Irish broke up with him. Before the marriage, Rustan asked to elope with Irish.
Irish rejected the proposal. She changed her phone number but Rustan was able to get the new number
and sent her messages using two cellphone numbers.

In June 2005, Irish received through multimedia message service (MMS) a picture of a naked woman
with spread legs and Irish’s face superimposed on the face of the woman. The sender’s number is one of
the numbers Rustan uses. Irish thinks that her face used in the image was taken from a photo he took
when they went to Baguio in 2003. She also received messages from Rustan stating that it would be easy
for him to spread the picture he sent through the internet.

Irish sought the help of the vice mayor who referred her to the police. Under their supervision, Irish
contacted Rustan and asked him to meet her at the Lorentess Resort in Brgy. Ramada, Maria Aurora to
which he did. Upon his arrival while walking to Irish, the officers arrested and searched him. Taken were
his phone and several SIM cards.

Joseph Gonzales, an expert in Information Technology and computer graphics, testified that the picture
had two irregularities. The face was unproportionate to the body and had a lighter color. In his opinion,
the picture was fake.

Rustan admitted to the relationship with Irish and that she wanted reconciliation after they broke up.
When they met in December 2004, after telling Irish that his girlfriend was already pregnant, Irish walked
out on him.

Sometime later, Rustan received a message from Irish asking help to sell her phone, telling him to meet
her in Lorentess Resort. Upon his arrival, the police approached him, seized his phone and other
belongings, and brought him to the police station. Moreover, he went to the same resort because Irish
asked him to help her identify a prankster who was sending her malicious text messages. Pretending to be
Irish, he contacted the prankster and received malicious messages which he then forwared to Irish. Rustan
claims that it was Irish herself who sent the malicious picture. He presented 6 pictures of the woman
whom he believed was Irish.

Michelle Ang, his wife, testified that she was sure Irish sent the pictures. Michelle claimed that she
received the pictures and hid the memory card. The woman was not naked in the pictures and her face is
not seen in 4 of the 6 pictures.

After the trial, the RTC found Irish’s testimony credible. The RTC observed that she wept while
recounting her experience which to the court were tangible expressions of pain and anguish for the
violence she suffered. The crying is evidence of her credibility. Thus, the court found Rustan guilty of the
violation of Section 5(h) of RA 9262.

Rustan appealed to the Court of Appeals (CA). But the CA affirmed the RTC decision and denied
Rustan’s further motion for reconsideration.
Issue
The main issue is whether or not the accused Rustan sent Irish a picture of a naked woman with her face
on it, causing her anguish, psychological distress and humiliation in violation of Section 5(h) of RA 9262.

The secondary issues are:

1. Whether or not a “dating relationship” existed between Rustan and Irish as defined in RA 9262;
2. Whether or not a single act of harassment, such as the sending of the obscene picture, already
constitutes a violation of Section 5(h) of RA 9262;
3. Whether or not the evidence used to convict Rustan was obtained from him in violation of his
constitutional rights; and
4. Whether or not the RTC properly admitted in evidence the obscene picture presented in this case.

Held/Rationale

Section 3(a) of RA 9262 provides that “Violence against women includes an act or acts of a person…
against a woman with whom he has or had a sexual or dating relationship.”

Section 5 identifies the act or acts which constitute violence against women and these include:

“h. Engaging in purposeful, knowing, or reckless conduct, personally or though another, that alarms or
causes substantial emotional or psychological distress to the woman or her child. This shall include, but
not be limited to the following acts:

XXXX

5. Engaging in any form of harassment or violence”;

Taken together, the elements of the crime of violence against women are:
1. The offender has or had a sexual or dating relationship with the offended woman;
2. The offender, personally or through another, commits an act or series of acts of violence against
the woman; and
3. The harassment causes substantial emotional or psychological distress to her.

On One, the parties agreed that the prosecution needed to prove that Rustan had a “dating relationship”
with Irish. Section 3(e) provides that a “dating relationship refers to a situation wherein the parties…are
romantically involved over time and on a continuing basis during the course of the relationship.”

Rustan claims that being “romantically involved” indicates that the couple have or had sexual relations.
He cited Webster’s Comprehensive Dictionary Encyclopedia Edition which provides an informal
meaning for “romance” used as a verb meaning “To make love; to make love to”. But the law did not say
that the offender must have “romanced” the woman. Instead, the word was used to describe a love affair.

Section 3 of RA 9262 provides that violence against women refers to any act or a series of acts with a
woman whom the person has or had a “sexual or dating relationship”. The law distinguishes a sexual
relationship from a dating relationship with the former being defined in Section 3(f) as “a single sexual
act which may or may not result in the bearing of a common child.” Thus, the law regards a dating
relationship can exist without sexual intercourse taking place.

Rustan claims that their relationship was “on-and-off” so their relationship cannot be described as having
been “developed over time and on a continuing basis”. But he admitted that they were romantically
involved for 3 months, which would be enough time to nurture a relationship. Irish explained that their
“on-and-off” relationship meant Rustan getting angry when she could not reply to his messages. She
described their relationship as continuous.

On Two, Rustan argues that one act of sending an offensive picture should not constitute a form of
harassment. But Section 3(a) of RA 9262 punishes “an act or any series of acts” that constitutes violence
against women, meaning that one is enough.

Rustan alleges that today’s women are so used to obscene communications that Irish getting such image
could not have harmed her or caused psychological or emotional distress. He claims having previously
done such communication with Irish that she was already used to it.

But, firstly, the RTC was not impressed by the testimonies of Rustan and his wife claiming that it was
Irish who sent the pictures since her face did not show on them.

Michelle claimed that she deleted several other pictures except for those presented. She said that she did
not know that the pictures remained saved after she deleted the pictures. Later, she claimed that she had
no time to delete them. And, even if she thought that all pictures were deleted, there should be no reason
to keep and hide the memory card. Finally, if she knew that some pictures remained, there would be no
reason to keep the card for many years as she does not want to see anything connected to Irish. Thus the
RTC was connect in not giving merit to her testimony.

Secondly, the Court cannot measure the trauma that Irish experienced because of Rustan’s low view of
the morals of today’s youth. What is obscene and injurious to an offended woman can only be determined
by circumstances of each case. For women not in the pornography trade, like Irish, such picture would
surely scandalized and pained if she saw herself in such picture. Further, Irish testified that Rustan sent
the picture with a threat of posting it online for all to see.

On Three, Rustan argues that since he was arrested without any warrant, all evidence gathered from him
would not be admissible in court. But the fact is that none of his belongings were presented in court. Only
a picture of his phone was presented, to which Rustan admitted to owning and using.

Actually most of the evidence against consisted in Irish’s testimony that she received the picture and
messages from one of Rustan’s cellphone numbers. To prove such claim, Irish and the police contacted
such number in order to meet Rustan at Lorentess Resort, to which he did. Consequently, the prosecution
need not present the confiscated phone and SIM cards.

Furthermore, Rustan admitted having sent the obscene text messages to Irish. His defense that he received
them from an unknown person and forwarding the same to Irish lacks merit on the RTC and this Court as
he has not presented the number of the person who sent such messages to him. Irish would not have likely
accused him of such if he helped her identify the sender.

On Four, Rustan claims that the obscene picture sent to Irish by text message constitutes an electronic
document and thus should be authenticated by an electronic signature as provided under Section 1, Rule
of the Rules on Electronic Evidence (A.M. 01-7-01-SC).

But, firstly, this is the first time Rustan raised this objection. He should have objected to the admission on
such ground at the time it was presented. Besides, the rules he cites do not apply to criminal action. The
Rules on Electronic Evidence applies only to civil actions, quasi-judicial proceedings, and administrative
proceedings.
In conclusion, the Court finds that prosecution has proved all elements of the crime charged beyond
reasonable doubt and denies the petition and affirms the decision of the Court of Appeals.

Snippets

[Facts] He said that it is highly possible for one to put the face of a woman from picture, superimpose it
on another picture containing another woman’s body and can be enhanced to look like the picture was
only of one woman.