RUSTAN ANG y PASCUA, G.R. No. 182835
Petitioner,
Present:
CARPIO, J., Chairperson,
- versus - VELASCO, JR.,*
BRION,
ABAD,
and
PEREZ, JJ.
THE HONORABLE COURT OF
APPEALS and IRISH SAGUD, Promulgated:
Respondents.
April 20, 2010
x
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
x
ABAD, J.:
This case concerns a claim of
commission of the crime of violence against women when a former boyfriend sent
to the girl the picture of a naked woman, not her, but with her face on it.
The Indictment
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 in an information that reads:
That on or about June 5, 2005, in the
Municipality of Maria Aurora, Province of Aurora, Philippines and within the
jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the said accused willfully, unlawfully
and feloniously, in a purposeful and reckless conduct, sent through the Short
Messaging Service (SMS) using his mobile phone, a pornographic picture to one
Irish Sagud, who was his former girlfriend, whereby the face of the latter was
attached to a completely naked body of another woman making it to appear that
it was said Irish Sagud who is depicted in the said obscene and pornographic
picture thereby causing substantial emotional anguish, psychological distress
and humiliation to the said Irish Sagud.[1]
The Facts and the Case
The evidence for the prosecution
shows that complainant Irish Sagud (Irish) and accused Rustan were classmates at
Before Rustan got married, however,
he got in touch with Irish and tried to convince her to elope with him, saying
that he did not love the woman he was about to marry. Irish rejected the proposal and told Rustan to
take on his responsibility to the other woman and their child. Irish changed her cellphone number but Rustan somehow
managed to get hold of it and sent her text messages. Rustan used two cellphone numbers for sending
his messages, namely, 0920-4769301 and 0921-8084768. Irish replied to his text messages but it was
to ask him to leave her alone.
In the early morning of
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.
One of the messages he sent to Irish, written in text messaging
shorthand, read: “Madali lang ikalat yun, my chatrum ang tarlac rayt pwede
ring send sa lahat ng chatter.”[4]
Irish sought the help of the vice mayor
of Maria Aurora who referred her to the police.
Under police supervision, Irish contacted Rustan through the cellphone
numbers he used in sending the picture and his text messages. Irish asked Rustan to meet her at the Lorentess
Resort in Brgy. Ramada, Maria Aurora, and he did. He came in a motorcycle. After parking it, he walked towards Irish but
the waiting police officers intercepted and arrested him. They searched him and seized his Sony
Ericsson P900 cellphone and several SIM cards.
While Rustan was being questioned at the police station, he shouted at
Irish: “Malandi ka kasi!”
Joseph Gonzales, an instructor at the
Aurora State College of Technology, testified as an expert in information
technology and computer graphics. He said
that it was very much possible for one to lift the face of a woman from a picture
and superimpose it on the body of another woman in another picture. Pictures can be manipulated and enhanced by computer
to make it appear that the face and the body belonged to just one person.
Gonzales testified that the picture
in question (Exhibit A) had two distinct irregularities: the face was not proportionate
to the body and the face had a lighter color.
In his opinion, the picture was fake and the face on it had been copied
from the picture of Irish in Exhibit B. Finally,
Gonzales explained how this could be done, transferring a picture from a computer
to a cellphone like the Sony Ericsson P900 seized from Rustan.
For his part, Rustan admitted having courted
Irish. He began visiting her in Tarlac
in October 2003 and their relation lasted until December of that year. He claimed that after their relation ended, Irish
wanted reconciliation. They met in
December 2004 but, after he told her that his girlfriend at that time (later
his wife) was already pregnant, Irish walked out on him.
Sometime later, Rustan got a text
message from Irish, asking him to meet her at Lorentess Resort as she needed
his help in selling her cellphone. When
he arrived at the place, two police officers approached him, seized his
cellphone and the contents of his pockets, and brought him to the police
station.
Rustan further claims that he also went
to Lorentess because Irish asked him to help her identify a prankster who was
sending her malicious text messages. Rustan
got the sender’s number and, pretending to be Irish, contacted the person. Rustan claims that he got back obscene
messages from the prankster, which he forwarded to Irish from his cellphone. This explained, he said, why the obscene
messages appeared to have originated from his cellphone number. Rustan claims that it was Irish herself who
sent the obscene picture (Exhibit A) to him.
He presented six pictures of a woman whom he identified as Irish
(Exhibits 2 to 7).[5]
Michelle Ang (Michelle), Rustan’s
wife, testified that she was sure Irish sent the six pictures. Michelle claims that she received the pictures
and hid the memory card (Exhibit 8) that contained them because she was jealous
and angry. She did not want to see
anything of Irish. But, while the woman
in the pictures posed in sexy clothing, in none did she appear naked as in Exhibit
A. Further, the face of the woman in
Exhibits 2, 4, 5 and 6 could not be seen.
Irish denied that she was the woman in those four pictures. As for Exhibits 3 and 7, the woman in the
picture was fully dressed.
After trial, the RTC found Irish’s testimony
completely credible, given in an honest and spontaneous manner. The RTC observed that she wept while
recounting her experience, prompting the court to comment: “Her tears were
tangible expression of pain and anguish for the acts of violence she suffered
in the hands of her former sweetheart.
The crying of the victim during her testimony is evidence of the
credibility of her charges with the verity borne out of human nature and
experience.”[6] Thus, in its Decision dated
On Rustan’s appeal to the Court of
Appeals (CA),[7] the
latter rendered a decision dated
The Issues Presented
The principal issue in this case is 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.
The subordinate issues are:
1. Whether
or not a “dating relationship” existed between Rustan and Irish as this term is
defined in R.A. 9262;
2. Whether
or not a single act of harassment, like the sending of the nude picture in this
case, already constitutes a violation of Section 5(h) of R.A. 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
the case.
The Court’s Rulings
Section 3(a) of R.A. 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. Thus:
SEC. 3. Definition of Terms. – As used in this Act,
(a) “Violence
against women and their children” refers to any act or a series of acts
committed by any person against a woman who is his wife, former wife, or
against a woman with whom the person has or had a sexual or dating
relationship, or with whom he has a common child, or against her child whether
legitimate or illegitimate, within or without the family abode, which result in
or is likely to result in physical, sexual, psychological harm or suffering, or
economic abuse including threats of such acts, battery, assault, coercion,
harassment or arbitrary deprivation of liberty.
x x x x
Section 5 identifies the act or acts
that constitute violence against women and these include any form of harassment
that causes substantial emotional or psychological distress to a woman. Thus:
SEC. 5. Acts of
Violence Against Women and Their Children. – The crime of violence against
women and their children is committed through any of the following acts:
x x x x
h. Engaging
in purposeful, knowing, or reckless conduct, personally or through 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:
x x x x
5. Engaging
in any form of harassment or violence;
The above provisions, taken together,
indicate that the elements of the crime of violence against women through
harassment are:
1. The offender has or had a sexual or
dating relationship with the offended woman;
2. The offender, by himself or through
another, commits an act or series of acts of harassment against the woman; and
3. The harassment alarms or causes
substantial emotional or psychological distress to her.
One. The parties to this case agree that the
prosecution needed to prove that accused Rustan had a “dating relationship”
with Irish. Section 3(e) provides that a
“dating relationship” includes a situation where the parties are romantically
involved over time and on a continuing basis during the course of the
relationship. Thus:
(e) “Dating relationship” refers to a situation wherein the parties live as husband and wife without the benefit of marriage or are romantically involved over time and on a continuing basis during the course of the relationship. A casual acquaintance or ordinary socialization between two individuals in a business or social context is not a dating relationship. (Underscoring supplied.)
Here, Rustan claims that, being “romantically
involved,” implies that the offender and the offended woman have or had sexual
relations. According to him, “romance” implies
a sexual act. He cites Webster’s
Comprehensive Dictionary Encyclopedia Edition which provides a colloquial or
informal meaning to the word “romance” used as a verb, i.e., “to make
love; to make love to” as in “He romanced her.”
But it seems clear that the law did not
use in its provisions the colloquial verb “romance” that implies a
sexual act. It did not say that the
offender must have “romanced” the offended woman. Rather, it used the noun “romance” to
describe a couple’s relationship, i.e., “a love affair.”[9]
R.A. 9262 provides in Section 3 that
“violence against women x x x refers to any act or a series of acts committed
by any person against a woman x x x with whom the person has or had a sexual or dating
relationship.” Clearly, the law itself distinguishes
a sexual relationship from a dating relationship. Indeed, Section 3(e) above defines “dating
relationship” while Section 3(f) defines “sexual relations.” The latter “refers to a single sexual act
which may or may not result in the bearing of a common child.” The dating relationship that the law
contemplates can, therefore, exist even without a sexual intercourse taking
place between those involved.
Rustan also claims that since the
relationship between Irish and him was of the “on-and-off” variety (away-bati), their romance cannot be
regarded as having developed “over time and on a continuing basis.” But the two of them were romantically
involved, as Rustan himself admits, from October to December of 2003. That would be time enough for nurturing a
relationship of mutual trust and love.
An “away-bati” or a fight-and-kiss
thing between two lovers is a common occurrence. Their taking place does not mean that the
romantic relation between the two should be deemed broken up during periods of
misunderstanding. Explaining what “away-bati” meant, Irish explained that
at times, when she could not reply to Rustan’s messages, he would get angry at
her. That was all. Indeed, she characterized their three-month romantic
relation as continuous.[10]
Two. Rustan argues that the one act of sending an
offensive picture should not be considered a form of harassment. He claims that such would unduly ruin him
personally and set a very dangerous precedent.
But Section 3(a) of R.A. 9262 punishes “any act or series of acts” that
constitutes violence against women. This
means that a single act of harassment, which translates into violence, would be
enough. The object of the law is to
protect women and children. Punishing
only violence that is repeatedly committed would license isolated ones.
Rustan alleges that today’s women,
like Irish, are so used to obscene communications that her getting one could
not possibly have produced alarm in her or caused her substantial emotional or
psychological distress. He claims having
previously exchanged obscene pictures with Irish such that she was already desensitized
by them.
But, firstly, the RTC which saw and
heard Rustan and his wife give their testimonies was not impressed with their
claim that it was Irish who sent the obscene pictures of herself (Exhibits
2-7). It is doubtful if the woman in the
picture was Irish since her face did not clearly show on them.
Michelle, Rustan’s wife, claimed that
she deleted several other pictures that Irish sent, except Exhibits 2 to 7. But her testimony did not make sense. She said that she did not know that Exhibits
2 to 7 had remained saved after she deleted the pictures. Later, however, she said that she did not
have time to delete them.[11] And, if she thought that she had deleted all
the pictures from the memory card, then she had no reason at all to keep and
hide such memory card. There would have
been nothing to hide. Finally, if she
knew that some pictures remained in the card, there was no reason for her to
keep it for several years, given that as she said she was too jealous to want
to see anything connected to Irish. Thus,
the RTC was correct in not giving credence to her testimony.
Secondly, the Court cannot measure the
trauma that Irish experienced based on Rustan’s low regard for the alleged moral
sensibilities of today’s youth. What is obscene
and injurious to an offended woman can of course only be determined based on
the circumstances of each case. Here, the
naked woman on the picture, her legs spread open and bearing Irish’s head and
face, was clearly an obscene picture and, to Irish a revolting and offensive
one. Surely, any woman like Irish, who is
not in the pornography trade, would be scandalized and pained if she sees
herself in such a picture. What makes it
further terrifying is that, as Irish testified, Rustan sent the picture with a
threat to post it in the internet for all to see. That must have given her a nightmare.
Three. Rustan argues that, since he was arrested and
certain items were seized from him without any warrant, the evidence presented
against him should be deemed inadmissible.
But the fact is that the prosecution did not present in evidence either the
cellphone or the SIM cards that the police officers seized from him at the time
of his arrest. The prosecution did not
need such items to prove its case. Exhibit
C for the prosecution was but a photograph depicting the Sony Ericsson P900
cellphone that was used, which cellphone Rustan admitted owning during the pre-trial
conference.
Actually, though, the bulk of the
evidence against him consisted in Irish’s testimony that she received the obscene
picture and malicious text messages that the sender’s cellphone numbers belonged
to Rustan with whom she had been previously in communication. Indeed, to prove that the cellphone numbers
belonged to Rustan, Irish and the police used such numbers to summon him to
come to Lorentess Resort and he did.[12] Consequently, the prosecution did not have to
present the confiscated cellphone and SIM cards to prove that Rustan sent those
messages.
Moreover, Rustan admitted having sent
the malicious text messages to Irish.[13] His defense was that he himself received
those messages from an unidentified person who was harassing Irish and he merely
forwarded the same to her, using his cellphone.
But Rustan never presented the cellphone number of the unidentified
person who sent the messages to him to authenticate the same. The RTC did not give credence to such version
and neither will this Court. Besides, it
was most unlikely for Irish to pin the things on Rustan if he had merely tried
to help her identify the sender.
Four. Rustan claims that the obscene picture sent to
Irish through a text message constitutes an electronic document. Thus, it should be authenticated by means of an
electronic signature, as provided under Section 1, Rule 5 of the Rules on
Electronic Evidence (A.M. 01-7-01-SC).
But, firstly, Rustan is raising this
objection to the admissibility of the obscene picture, Exhibit A, for the first
time before this Court. The objection is
too late since he should have objected to the admission of the picture on such
ground at the time it was offered in evidence.
He should be deemed to have already waived such ground for objection.[14]
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.[15]
In conclusion, this Court finds that
the prosecution has proved each and every element of the crime charged beyond
reasonable doubt.
WHEREFORE, the
Court DENIES the petition and AFFIRMS the decision of the Court of
Appeals in CA-G.R. CR 30567 dated
SO ORDERED.
ROBERTO A. ABAD
Associate Justice
WE CONCUR:
ANTONIO T. CARPIO
Associate Justice
PRESBITERO J. VELASCO, JR. ARTURO D. BRION
Associate Justice Associate Justice
JOSE
PORTUGAL PEREZ
Associate Justice
ATTESTATION
I attest that the conclusions in the
above Decision had been reached in consultation before the case was assigned to
the writer of the opinion of the Court’s Division.
ANTONIO T. CARPIO
Associate Justice
Chairperson, Second Division
CERTIFICATION
Pursuant to Section 13, Article VIII
of the Constitution and the Division Chairperson’s Attestation, I certify that
the conclusions in the above Decision had been reached in consultation before
the case was assigned to the writer of the opinion of the Court’s Division.
REYNATO
S. PUNO
Chief Justice
*
Designated as additional member in lieu of Associate Justice Mariano C. Del
Castillo, per raffle dated
[1] Docketed as Criminal Case 3493.
[2] Records, p. 69.
[3]
[4] Exhibit D and sub-markings, id. at 72-76.
[5]
[6] Rollo, p. 38.
[7] Docketed as CA-G.R. CR 30567.
[8] Penned by then Associate Justice Mariano C. Del Castillo (now a member of this Court), and concurred in by Associate Justices Arcangelita Romilla-Lontok and Romeo F. Barza.
[9] Webster’s New World College Dictionary, Third Edition, p. 1164.
[10] TSN,
[11] TSN,
[12] TSN,
[13] TSN,
[14] People
v. Mendoza, G.R. No. 180501,
[15] A.M. No. 01-7-01-SC, Rule 1, Section 2.