RUSTAN ANG Y PASUCA, petitioner, vs.

THE HONORABLE COURT OF

APPEALS and IRISH SAGUD, respondents
G.R. No. 182835. April 20, 2010.

Facts of the Case

 Rustan courted Irish and had an “on-and-off” relationship

 Rustan admitted to courting Irish.
 But after he told that her that he got his girlfriend pregnant, Irish
recanted.
 Irish learned that Rustan had a live-in partner whom he got pregnant; she
broke up with him.
 Rustan tried to reconciliate with Irish but she rejected.
 After their relationship ended, Irish wanted to reconciliate.
 Rustan tried to communicate with Irish through two different cellphone
numbers anonymously.
 Irish received an MMS containing a photo a naked woman and with her
face edited on it.
 The photo came from one of the two cellphone numbers Rustan was
using.
 It was Irish who sent the obscene photos according to Rustan.
 Rustan’s wife affirmed that it was indeed Irish who sent the photos.
 Rustan threatened Irish that he could easily spread the photo through the
internet.
 Irish sought the help of the Vice Mayor of Maria, Aurrora.
 Irish contacted Rustan through one of the two cellphone numbers to meet
up in Lorentess Resort where he was apprehended by the police.
 Rustan went to Lorentess resort to meet with Irish to help her identify a
prankster, who was sending her malicious text messages.

Issues

 Principle Issue: Whether or not Rustan sent the obscene edited photos of
Irish which caused her distress and humiliation, and in violation Sec 5.(h)
of R.A. 9262
 Whether or not Rustan and Irish “dated”
 Whether or not a single act of harrasment violates Sec 5.(h) of R.A. 9262
  Whether or not the evidence was obtained without violating Rustan’s
rights
 Whether or not the RTC properly admitted in evidence the obscene
photos

Decisions

RTC found Rustan guilty of the violation of Sec 5.(h) of R.A. 9262

CA Affirmed RTC and denied Rustan’s motion for reconsideration

Court denies the petition and affirms the decision of the CA in CA-G.R. CR 30567

Reasoning

1. Dating relationships can exist without sexual intercourse taking place

between those involved.
2. Rustan admits being romantically involved with Irish.
3. A fight-kiss taking place does not mean that the romantic relation
between the two is broken.
 A single act of harrasment, which translates to violance, is enough to
violate Sec 5.(h) of R.A. 9262
4. Rustan’s wife’s testimony did noty make sense and it was correct by the
RTC not to give it credence.
5. Any woman not in the pornography business would feel scandalized and
pained to have a nude photo of her.
6. Irish contacted Rustan through one of the two cellphone numbers to
which he replied and met with Irish in Lorentess Resort.
7. Rustan did not identify the number of the person who forwarded the
obscene pictures.
8. Sec 1, Rule 5 of the Rules on Electronic Evidence applies only to civil,
quasi-judicial proceedings, and administrative proceedings and not
criminal action.
Separate Opinions

Analysis
 RESOLUTION: ANONYMOUS COMPLAINT AGAINST ATTY. CRESENCIO P.
CO UNTIAN JR.
A.C. NO. 5900. April 10, 2019.

Facts of the Case

 Complainant requested the Court to investigate the alleged sexual

harassments that respondent had committed against students of Xavier,
specifically, Antoinette Toyco, Christina Sagarbarria, and Lea Dal.
 Co Untian said these complaints are brought about by students who failed
his class.
 Co Untian did not send flowers to Toyco and text messages were friendly
and had no malice.
 Co Unitan sent flowers anonymously through another law student to
Toyco and sent her malicious text messages.
 Co Unitan showed Sagarbarria a photo of a naked woman that looked like
her in public which caused her fear and depression.
 Co Untian showed the photo of the naked woman to Sagarbarria as a joke
because they have a mature, adult relationship as Niece and Uncle and
that she was not humiliated.
 Co Untian instilled sexual innuendos when Dal said “come again” during
recitation.
 Co Untian found Dal’s answer “come again” as disrespectful and merely
used it for humor in class where she also laughed about it.

Decisions

Resolution No. XIX-2010-289 disbarred Co Untian

Resolution No. XXII-2017-804 granted Co Untian’s motion for reconsideration

and reduced the penalty to two years of suspension

WHEREFORE, respondent Atty. Cresencio P. Co Untian, Jr. is SUSPENDED

from the practice of law for five (5) years and ten (10) yea.-$ from teaching
law in any school effective upon the finality of this Resolution, with a STERN
WARNING that a repetition of the same or similar act will be dealt with more
severely.

Reasoning
1. R.A. No. 7877 does not require that the victim had acceded to the sexual
desires of the abuser. Further, it is not necessary that a demand or
request for sexual favor is articulated in a categorical manner as it may
be discerned from the acts of the offended.
2. In short, it is not necessary that there was an offer for sex for there to be
sexual harassment as a superior's conduct with sexual underpinnings,
which offends the victim or creates a hostile environment would suffice.
3. Respondent's actions towards the students concerned definitely
constitute sexual harassment as defined by R.A. No. 7877 and the
pertinent rules and regulation.
4. Respondent's conduct towards Sagarbarria, Dal and Toyco created a
hostile and offensive environment which has no place in a learning
institution.
5. Respondent's alleged close relationship with Sagarbarria is not an
excuse as it does no~ detract from the fact that he exhibited the
indecent picture in a public place
6. Respondent cou: ,f have saved Sagarbarria from embarrassment in
having to identify the naked woman as herself in public.
7. Toyco was uncomfortable from the unwelcomed flirtations made by Co
Untian. In addition, they cast a cloud of impropriety considering that
respondent was Toyco's teacher when he sent them.
8. It is readily apparent that the remark is tasteless, vulgar and crude and
has no place in any academic setting.
9. Respondent abused the power and authority he possessed over the
complainants.
Separate Opinions

Analysis