CASE DIGEST (Local)

I. Case Title: G.R. No. 182835 : April 20, 2010

II. Parties Involved:

RUSTAN ANG y PASCUA, Petitioner, v. THE HONORABLE COURT OF
APPEALS and IRISH SAGUD, Respondents

III. Facts of the case:

Irish, the plaintiff received through a text message on June 5, 2005 a picture of a
naked woman with spread legs and with her face on it.c The sender's cellphone number,
stated in the message, was 0921-8084768, one of the numbers that Rustan, the defendant
used. After she got the obscene picture, Irish got other text messages from Rustan. He
boasted that it would be easy for him to create similarly scandalous pictures of her. And
he threatened to spread the picture he sent through the internet.

IV. Evidence exhibits

The said accused namely Rustan sent through sms using his mobile phone, a
pornographic picture to Irish Sagud, who was his former girlfriend, whereby the face of
Irish was attached to a completely naked body of another woman making it to appear that
it was Irish Sagud who is depicted in the said obscene and pornographic picture.

Joseph Gonzales, an instructor at the Aurora State College of Technology,

testified as an expert in information technology and computer graphics that the picture
used as evidence had two distinct irregularities: the face was not proportionate to the
body and the face had a lighter color.

V. Court Ruling
Section 5 identifies this case concerns a claim of commission constitute violence against
women and these include any form of harassment that causes substantial emotional or
psychological distress to a woman. Besides, the rules he cites do not apply to the present
criminal action. The Rules on Electronic Evidence applies only to civil actions, quasi-
judicial proceedings, and administrative proceedings.

VI. Final Decision

In conclusion, this Court finds that the prosecution has proved each and every element of
the crime charged beyond reasonable doubt. The public prosecutor charged petitioner-
accused Rustan Ang (Rustan) before the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Baler, Aurora, of
violation of the Anti-Violence Against Women and Their Children Act or Republic Act
(R.A.) 9262.

VII. Date when final decision was rendered

Wherefore, the Court denies the petition and affirms the decision of the Court of Appeals
in CA-G.R. CR 30567 dated January 31, 2008 and its resolution dated April 25, 2008.

VIII. Reference
https://www.chanrobles.com/scdecisions/jurisprudence2010/april2010/182835.php
 CASE DIGEST(Local)

I. Case Title: G.R. Nos. 114931-33 November 16, 1995

II. Parties Involved

THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. ANNIE FERRER,
accused, ROMEO SISON, NILO PACADAR, JOEL TAN, RICHARD DE LOS
SANTOS, and JOSELITO TAMAYO, accused-appellants.

III. Facts of the case

It happened after the 1986 EDSA Revolution. On July 27, 1986, it resulted in the
murder of Stephen Salcedo, a known "Coryista." They caught Salcedo and boxed and
kicked and mauled him. Salcedo tried to extricate himself from the group but they again
pounced on him and pummelled him with fist blows and kicks hitting him on various
parts of his body. Accused Joselito Tamayo boxed Salcedo on the left jaw and kicked him
as he once more fell. Banculo saw accused Romeo Sison trip Salcedo and kick him on the
head, and when he tried to stand, Sison repeatedly boxed him. The mauling resumed at
the Rizal Monument and continued along Roxas Boulevard until Salcedo collapsed and
lost consciousness. Salcedo died of "hemorrhage, intracranial traumatic." He sustained
various contusions, abrasions, lacerated wounds and skull fractures

IV. Evidence exhibits

The mauling of Salcedo was witnessed by bystanders and several press people,
both local and foreign. The press took pictures and a video of the event which became
front-page news the following day, capturing national and international
attention. Photographs taken of the victim as he was being mauled at the Luneta —
starting from a grassy portion to the pavement at the Rizal Monument and along Roxas
Boulevard, -as he was being chased by his assailants and as he sat pleading with his
assailants.

V. Court Ruling
This court notes that when the prosecution offered the photographs as part of its
evidence, appellants, it was objected to their admissibility for lack of proper
identification. For their defense, the principal accused denied their participation in the
mauling of the victim and offered their respective alibis.

VI. Final Decision

1. Accused-appellants Romeo Sison, Nilo Pacadar, Joel Tan and Richard de los Santos
are found GUILTY of Murder and penalty of reclusion perpetua;

2. Accused-appellant Joselito Tamayo is found GUILTY of Homicide and as a

consequence, penalty of TWELVE (12) YEARS of prision

3. All accused-appellants are hereby ordered to pay jointly and severally amount of
damages

VII. Date when final decision was rendered

On December 16, 1988, the trial court rendered a decision but on appeal, the Court of
Appeals on December 28, 1992, modified the decision of the trial court.

VIII. Reference
https://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri1995/nov1995/gr_108280_83_1995.html?
fbclid=IwAR0epletHgXsU5SIBCiFAITfVR9NdGQxDTdUzsJFqCz8lGyuVF_410AlQZY
 CASE DIGEST (International)

I. Case Title
II. Parties Involved
III. Facts of the case
IV. Evidence exhibits
V. Court Ruling
VI. Final Decision
VII. Date when final decision was rendered
VIII. Reference
 CASE DIGEST (International)

I. Case Title
II. Parties Involved
III. Facts of the case
IV. Evidence exhibits
V. Court Ruling
VI. Final Decision
VII. Date when final decision was rendered
VIII. Reference