LexDigests

Ang vs. CA, et.al.

Will

5 years ago

Advertisements

RUSTAN ANG y PASCUA, Petitioner, vs.

THE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS and IRISH SAGUD, Respondents.

G.R. No. 182835; April 20, 2010

Facts:

After receiving from the accused Rustan via multimedia message service (MMS) a picture of a naked
woman with her face superimposed on the figure, Complainant filed an action against said accused for
violation of the Anti-Violence Against Women and Their Children Act or Republic Act (R.A.) 9262.

The sender’s cellphone number, stated in the message, was 0921-8084768, one of the numbers that
Rustan used. Irish surmised that he copied the picture of her face from a shot he took when they were in
Baguio in 2003. The accused said to have boasted that it would be easy for him to create similarly
scandalous pictures of her and threatened to spread the picture he sent through the internet.

The trial court later 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 affirming the RTC decision. 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 RTC properly admitted in evidence the obscene picture presented in the case?

Held:

Yes. The Supreme Court affirms the decision of the CA.

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).

However, Rustan is raising this objection to the admissibility of the obscene picture for the first time
before the Supreme 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.

Moreover, 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.

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

Advertisements

Categories: Uncategorized

Leave a Comment

LexDigests

Blog at WordPress.com.
Back to top