Case Digest (G.R. No. 182835)
Facts:
Rustan ang y Pascua, G.R. No. 182835, April 20, 2010, Supreme Court Second Division, Abad, J., writing for the Court. The petition sought review of the Court of Appeals decision affirming the conviction of petitioner for violation of the Anti-Violence Against Women and Their Children Act (R.A. 9262).The prosecution charged petitioner Rustan Ang before the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Baler, Aurora (docketed as Criminal Case No. 3493) with violating Section 5(h) of R.A. 9262 for allegedly sending to his former girlfriend Irish Sagud (complainant) a multimedia message on June 5, 2005 containing a pornographic image that superimposed Irish’s face on a naked woman (Exhibit A), together with threatening text messages that he would spread the picture via the internet.
The factual record shows that Rustan and Irish had been romantically involved in late 2003 and maintained an on-and-off relationship thereafter. After Irish ended the relationship upon learning Rustan was to marry another woman, Rustan continued to send messages to Irish using two cellphone numbers. On June 5, 2005 Irish received Exhibit A; the message displayed the sender’s number 0921-8084768, one of the numbers Rustan used. Irish believed Rustan had taken her face from an earlier photograph he had taken of her (Exhibit B). She reported the incident to local authorities.
Under police supervision Irish arranged to summon the sender to Lorentess Resort; Rustan arrived and was apprehended. Police seized a Sony Ericsson P900 cellphone and several SIM cards from him. An information technology expert, Joseph Gonzales, testified that the image (Exhibit A) showed signs of manipulation and that the face had been superimposed on another body. Rustan admitted courting Irish and admitted sending some text messages, but claimed he had been assisting Irish to identify a prankster and that he had merely forwarded obscene messages he himself had received; he further contended that Irish might have sent the pictures.
The RTC found Irish credible, credited her weeping testimony, and convicted Rustan of violating Section 5(h) of R.A. 9262 in a Decision dated Aug...(Subscriber-Only)
Issues:
- Was the evidence used to convict Rustan obtained in violation of his constitutional rights?
- Was the obscene picture (Exhibit A) an electronic document requiring authentication by electronic signature under the Rules on Electronic Evidence, and if so, was objection timely?
- Did a "dating relationship" as defined in R.A. 9262 exist between Rustan and Irish?
- Can a single act of harassment (the sending of one obscene picture) constitute a violation of Section 5(h) of R.A. 9262?
- Whether Rustan committed the offense under Section 5(h) of R.A. 9262 by sending Exhibit A and ca...(Subscriber-Only)
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)