Case Digest: Ang v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 182835, April 20, 2010

      Section 5(h) of RA 9262 | Criminal Law

Facts:

Irish Sagud and accused Rustan Ang were classmates at Wesleyan University in Aurora Province. Rustan courted Irish and they became "on-and-off" sweethearts towards the end of 2004. When Irish learned afterwards that Rustan had taken a live-in partner (now his wife), whom he had gotten pregnant, Irish broke up with him.

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.

Irish received through multimedia message service (MMS) a picture of a naked woman with spread legs and with Irish’s face superimposed on the figure. 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.

Irish sought the help of the vice mayor of Maria Aurora who referred her to the police. Under police supervision, Irish asked Rustan to meet her at the Lorentess Resort in Brgy. Ramada, Maria Aurora, and he did. They searched him and seized his Sony Ericsson P900 cellphone and several SIM cards. 

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. 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 to him. He presented six pictures of a woman whom he identified as Irish.

RTC found Irish’s testimony completely credible, given in an honest and spontaneous manner.

RTC & CA: Guilty of violation of Section 5 (h) of RA 9262.

Issues:

I. WoN a "dating relationship" existed between Rustan and Irish as this term is defined in R.A. 9262;

II. WoN 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;

III. WoN the evidence used to convict Rustan was obtained from him in violation of his constitutional rights; and

IV. WoN the RTC properly admitted in evidence the obscene picture presented in the case.

Held:

Guilty of violation of Section 5 (h) of RA 9262.

I. 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.

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.

II. 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.

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.

III. 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. 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.

IV. 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.

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.

Crime Committed by the Appellant:

Section 3(a) of R.A. 9262:

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

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.

x x x x

Section 3(e):

(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.)

Recit Version:

Facts:

Irish Sagud and Rustan Ang were classmates and "on-and-off" sweethearts until Irish discovered that Rustan had a live-in partner whom he had gotten pregnant. 

Rustan later contacted Irish to elope with him, but she rejected him and changed her phone number. Rustan sent an obscene picture of a woman with Irish's face superimposed on it and threatened to spread it on the internet. 

Irish sought help from the police, and they seized Rustan's cellphone and SIM cards. Rustan claimed that he went to meet Irish to help her identify a prankster sending her malicious text messages, but the court found Irish's testimony credible.

RTC & CA: Guilty of violation of Section 5 (h) of RA 9262.

Issues:

I. WoN a "dating relationship" existed between Rustan and Irish as this term is defined in R.A. 9262;

II. WoN 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;

III. WoN the evidence used to convict Rustan was obtained from him in violation of his constitutional rights; and

IV. WoN the RTC properly admitted in evidence the obscene picture presented in the case.

Held:

Guilty of violation of Section 5 (h) of RA 9262.

I. The dating relationship that the law contemplates can, therefore, exist even without a sexual intercourse taking place between those involved. 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.

II. 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.

III. 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. 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.  

IV. 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.