RUSTAN ANG v. CA
G.R. No. 182835,
April 20, 2010
FACTS:
Irish Sagud and Rustan Ang became "on-and-off"
sweethearts until Irish decided to break up with Rustan after learning that he
had taken a live‐in partner whom he
had gotten pregnant. Before Rustan got married, he tried to convince Irish to
elope with him. Irish, however, rejected his proposal. She changed her
cellphone number but Rustan somehow managed to get hold of it and sent her text
messages. He used two cellphone numbers for sending his messages. Irish replied
to his text messages but it was to ask him to leave her alone.
On June 5, 2005, Irish received through
multimedia message service (MMS) a picture of a naked woman with her face
superimposed on the figure. The sender's cellphone number was one of the
numbers that Rustan used. After she got the obscene picture, Irish got other
text messages from Rustan. He boasted that it would be easy for him to create
similarly scandalous pictures of her. He also threatened to spread the picture through
the internet. Irish sought the help of the police in apprehending Rustan. Under
police supervision, she contacted Rustan and asked him to meet her at the
Lorentess Resort.
When Rustan came, police officers intercepted
and arrested him. They searched him and seized his Sony Ericsson P900 cellphone
and several SIM cards. While Rustan was being questioned at the police station,
he shouted at Irish: "Malandi ka kasi!"
Rustan claims that he went to meet Irish
because she 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. According
to him, this explained why the obscene messages appeared to have originated
from his cellphone number. Rustan claims that it was Irish herself who sent the
obscene picture to him.
The RTC found Irish's testimony completely
credible, given in an honest and spontaneous manner. The trial court found
Rustan guilty of the violation of Section 5(h) of R.A. 9262. The CA affirmed
the RTC decision and denied Rustan’s MR. Rustan filed a petition for review on
certiorari before the SC.
ISSUE:
1. Whether or not a "dating
relationship" existed between Rustan and Irish as this term is defined in
R.A. 9262; and
2. Whether or not a single act of harassment,
like the sending of the nude picture in this case, already constitutes a
violation of Section 5(h) of R.A. 9262.
HELD:
1. YES. Section 3 (e) of R.A. 9262 taken
together with Sec 5(h) 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(a) of RA 9262 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. The law did not use in its provisions the colloquial verb
"romance" that implies a sexual act. Rather, it used the noun
"romance" to describe a couple's relationship, i.e., "a love
affair. The law itself distinguishes a sexual relationship from a dating
relationship. Section 3(e) defines "dating relationship" while
Section 3(f) defines "sexual relations." The latter "refers to a
single sexual act which may or may not result in the bearing of a common
child." The dating relationship that the law contemplates can, therefore,
exist even without a sexual intercourse taking place between those involved. An
"away‐bati" or a fight‐and‐kiss thing between two lovers does not mean
that the romantic relation between the two should be deemed broken up during
periods of misunderstanding.
2. YES. Section 3(a) of R.A. 9262 punishes
"any act or series of acts" that constitutes violence against women.
This means that 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. 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. That must have given her a nightmare.
0
Comments
