Ang vs CA

RUSTAN ANG y PASCUA, Petitioner, vs. COURT OF APPEALS and IRISH SAGUD, Respondents.

Facts: Irish Sagud and Rustan were classmates at Wesleyan University in Aurora. They became “on-and-off” sweethearts towards the end of 2004. Irish learned that Rustan had taken a live-in partner (now his wife), whom he had gotten pregnant. Irish broke up with Rustan.

Before Rustan got married, he tried to convince Irish to elope with him. Irish rejected the proposal. Irish changed her cellphone number but Rustan managed to get hold of it and sent her text messages. Rustan used two cellphone numbers. Irish to ask him to leave her alone.

Irish received a multimedia message service (MMS) a picture of a naked woman with spread legs and with Irish’s face superimposed on the figure. The sender was 0921-8084768, one of the numbers that Rustan used.

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 through the internet.

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. Irish asked Rustan to meet her at a resort. When Rustan was walking towards Irish, police officers intercepted and arrested him. They searched him and seized his cellphone and several SIM cards.

Rustan admitted having courted Irish. He claimed that after their relation ended, Irish wanted reconciliation. Sometime later, Rustan got a text message from Irish, asking him to meet her at 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 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 is why the obscene messages appeared to have originated from him. 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 Rustan guilty of the violation of Section 5(h) of R.A. 9262. On appeal CA affirm the RTC decision.

Issue: Whether or not Rustan is guilty of the violation of RA 9262.

Held: The provisions of RA 9262 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.

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. Rustan claims that, being “romantically involved,” implies sexual relations. R.A. 9262 provides in Section 3 that violence against women refers to any act or a series of acts committed by any person against a woman with whom the person has or had a sexual or dating relationship. The law itself distinguishes a sexual relationship from a dating relationship.

Rustan argues that the one act of sending an offensive picture should not be considered a form of harassment. The law punishes “any act or series of acts” that constitutes violence against women. 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.

Court cannot measure the trauma that Irish experienced. 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.

Rustan admitted having sent the malicious text messages to Irish. 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.

Court finds that the prosecution has proved each and every element of the crime charged beyond reasonable doubt.