RUSTAN ANG y PASCUA vs. THE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS and IRISH SAGUD G.R. No. 182835 April 20, 2010

Facts:

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 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:

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.

On August 1, 2001, the RTC found Rustan guilty of the violation of Section 5(h) of R.A. 9262.

On Rustan’s appeal to the Court of Appeals (CA), the latter rendered a decision dated January 31, 2008, affirming the RTC decision.

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).

The CA denied Rustan’s motion for reconsideration in a resolution dated April 25, 2008. Thus, Rustan filed the present for review on certiorari.

Issue:

Whether or not the Rules on Electronic Evidence applies on criminal cases and thus, the picture sent through a cell phone message wherein Sagud’s face was attached on the body of a nude woman may be used as evidence for violation of Section 5(h) of R.A. 9262.

Held:

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.

However, 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.

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