View full case

RUSTAN ANG Y PASCUA

FACTS:

The case involves the claim that the accused committed the crime of violence against women by sending a pornographic picture, in the form of an MMS, to his former girlfriend. The accused, Rustan Ang, was charged with violation of the Anti-Violence Against Women and Their Children Act or Republic Act (R.A.) 9262. The information stated that on June 5, 2005, in the Municipality of Maria Aurora, Rustan intentionally and recklessly sent a pornographic picture to his ex-girlfriend, Irish Sagud. In the said picture, Irish's face was attached to the completely naked body of another woman, causing substantial emotional anguish, psychological distress, and humiliation to Irish.

According to the prosecution's evidence, Irish and Rustan were classmates at Wesleyan University and were in an on-and-off relationship from 2004. However, when Irish found out that Rustan had gotten another woman pregnant, she broke up with him. Before Rustan got married, he contacted Irish and tried to convince her to elope with him. Irish rejected his proposal and changed her cellphone number, but Rustan still managed to send her text messages. On June 5, 2005, Irish received an MMS of a picture showing a naked woman with her face superimposed on it. Irish suspected that the picture was created using a shot of her face taken during a previous trip. After receiving the picture, Irish received more text messages from Rustan, where he threatened to create similarly scandalous pictures of her and spread the picture he sent via the internet. Irish sought the help of the vice mayor of Maria Aurora, who referred her to the police. Under police supervision, Irish arranged a meeting with Rustan, and the police arrested him.

During the trial, Joseph Gonzales, an expert in information technology and computer graphics, testified that it was possible to lift a person's face from one picture and superimpose it on the body of another person. He also explained how the picture in question could have been transferred from a computer to a cellphone. Rustan, on the other hand, claimed that Irish herself sent him the obscene picture and presented other pictures he claimed were of Irish. The Regional Trial Court (RTC) found Irish's testimony credible and convicted Rustan of violating Section 5(h) of R.A. 9262. The Court of Appeals affirmed the RTC's decision, prompting Rustan to file a petition for review on certiorari.

ISSUES:

  1. Whether or not accused Rustan sent Irish by cellphone message the picture with her face pasted on the body of a nude woman, inflicting anguish, psychological distress, and humiliation on her in violation of Section 5(h) of R.A. 9262.

  2. Whether or not a "dating relationship" existed between Rustan and Irish as defined in R.A. 9262.

  3. Whether or not a single act of harassment, like the sending of the nude picture in this case, constitutes a violation of Section 5(h) of R.A. 9262.

  4. Whether or not the evidence used to convict Rustan was obtained in violation of his constitutional rights.

  5. Whether or not the RTC properly admitted in evidence the obscene picture presented in the case.

RULING:

  1. On the principal issue The Court affirmed that Rustan sent the picture, causing substantial emotional anguish, psychological distress, and humiliation to Irish, which is a violation of Section 5(h) of R.A. 9262.

  2. On the existence of a "dating relationship" The Court found that there was a "dating relationship" between Rustan and Irish, characterizing their romantic involvement over a period from October to December 2003, as sufficient under R.A. 9262.

  3. On the act of harassment The Court ruled that a single act of sending an obscene picture constitutes harassment and is sufficient to violate Section 5(h) of R.A. 9262.

  4. On constitutional rights and admissibility of evidence The Court stated that the evidence (cellphone and SIM cards) was not presented by the prosecution and was unnecessary for proving the case. It also noted that Rustan failed to present any of his own evidence to disprove the allegations effectively.

  5. On the admissibility of the obscene picture The Court ruled that Rustan raised the objection too late and noted that the Rules on Electronic Evidence do not apply to criminal actions, thus affirming the admissibility of Exhibit A.

PRINCIPLES:

  • Violence Against Women (R.A. 9262): Includes any act or series of acts causing harm or suffering to a woman with whom the offender has had a sexual or dating relationship.

  • Dating Relationship Definition: Requires romantic involvement but does not necessitate sexual relations.

  • Single Act of Harassment: Constitutes enough to result in substantial emotional or psychological distress.

  • Evidence Admissibility: Objections to electronic documents in criminal cases must be timely; rules for electronic evidence apply only to civil, quasi-judicial, and administrative proceedings.

  • Constitutional Rights in Evidence Collection: Improperly obtained evidence, if not necessary for the prosecution's case, does not invalidate the conviction if sufficient other evidence supports guilt.