Case: Ang vs.

Court of Appeals
G.R. No. 182835
April 20, 2010

Facts:

From the months of October to December of 2003, Rustan and Irish were dating on-and-off. Upon
learning that Rustan got his live-in partner pregnant, Irish breaks up with him. With the hopes of
reconciliation, Rustan asks Irish to elope with him claiming that he did not love the woman he
was about to marry. Irish rejects him. After the failed proposal, Irish changes her number. Despite
this, Rustan manages to get a hold of her new number.

On June 2005, Irish received through multimedia message service (MMS), a photo of a naked
woman spread eagle with Irish’s face edited in place of the woman’s in the original photo. Irish
recognized the number used to send the photo as one of Rustan’s. The naked photo was followed
by a series of text messages threatening Irish that the photos could be easily spread online.

With the police’s help, Irish contacted Rustan through the cellphone numbers he used to send
the photo and the threatening texts. Irish and the police lured him to the Lorentess Resort.
Rustan arrives at the resort and was arrested by the police. His Sony Ericsson 900 and several sim
cards were confiscated.

As defense, Rustan claimed that he went to the resort because Irish needed help in selling her
cellphone and in identifying a prankster who has been sending her lewd messages. As for the
obscene messages sent by his number to Irish, Rustan claimed that he pretended to be Irish and
contacted the said prankster. The prankster sent obscene messages, which he then sent to Irish.

The Regional Trial Court (RTC) charged Rustan of violating Republic Act No. 9263 also known as
the Anti-Violence Against Women and Their Children Act. Rustan appealed to the Court of
Appeals (CA), which affirmed the RTC’s decision. After Rustan’s motion for reconsideration was
denied by the CA, he filed a petition for review on certiorari upon the Supreme Court.

Issues:
Whether or not a “dating relationship”, as defined in R.A. No. 9262, existed between Rustan and
irish

Whether or not a single act of harassment constitutes a violation of Section 5(h) R.A. No. 9262

Whether or not Rustan’s constitutional rights were violated when the evidence used to convict
him was obtained

Whether or not the RTC properly admitted in evidence the obscene picture presented in the case
Held:

Sec 3(a) of R.A. 9262 mentions that violence against women and children may be committed by
any person against a woman he is in a “sexual or dating relationship with.” Using Section 3(e),
which defines dating relationship as a situation where two parties are romantically involved in a
continuing basis, Rustan claims that he and Irish were never in a dating relationship for two
reasons. First, they were dating on-and-off, thus they were never involved in a continuing basis.
Second, they were never romantically involved because they never had sexual relations.

The Court rejected Rustan’s claims. It found that their relationship from October to December of
2003 was enough to nurture a relationship of mutual trust and love. It also found that their
relationship not being sexual does not mean that they were not dating – the law clearly says
“sexual or dating relationship”.

Rustan also argued that his actions cannot be a form of harassment because he only sent an
offensive picture to Irish once. Again, this argument is devoid of merit. The law clearly states “any
act or series of acts”. Since the purpose of the law is to protect women and children, a single act
of harassment would be enough. Rustan further argued that women today are used to obscene
communications, thus the photo he sent could not have produced harm to Irish. The Court ruled
that what is obscene and injurious to a woman differs per case. In the case at hand, the photo
sent to Irish and the subsequent threat to spread it around are enough to give her a nightmare.

For Rustan’s argument that the evidence presented against him should be inadmissible because
it was obtained without a warrant, the court ruled that the items seized were never presented in
evidence. Further, the seized items were not needed to prove that he sent the photos and
messages. In fact, majority of the evidence used against him came from Irish’s testimony.
Moreover, Rustan failed to present the number of the alleged prankster that sent the malicious
photos.

Lastly, Rustan’s objection that the photo sent, being an electronic document, should be
authenticated by electronic signature as per Section 1, Rule 5 of the Rules on Electronic Evidence,
was raised too late. Further, the Rule Rustan cited does not apply to criminal actions.

All elements of the crime are present. The Court affirms the CA decision finding Rustan guilty
beyond reasonable doubt of violating R.A. 9262 .