You are on page 1of 1

G.R. No.

182835 April 20, 2010

RUSTAN ANG y PASCUA, Petitioner,



This case concerns a claim of commission of the crime of violence against women when a former boyfriend
(Rustan) sent to the girl (Irish) the picture of a naked woman, not her, but with her face on it.

Irish received through multimedia message service (MMS) a picture of a naked woman with spread legs and with
Irishs face superimposed on the figure. The senders cellphone number, stated in the message, was 0921-
8084768, one of the numbers that Rustan used.

Gonzales, an expert, testified that the picture in question had two distinct irregularities: the face was not
proportionate to the body and the face had a lighter color. In his opinion, the picture was fake and the face on it
had been copied from the picture of Irish. Finally, Gonzales explained how this could be done, transferring a
picture from a computer to a cellphone like the Sony Ericsson P900 seized from Rustan.

After trial, the Court found Irishs testimony completely credible, given in an honest and spontaneous manner. The
Court observed that she wept while recounting her experience, prompting the court to comment: "Her tears were
tangible expression of pain and anguish for the acts of violence she suffered in the hands of her former
sweetheart. The crying of the victim during her testimony is evidence of the credibility of her charges with the
verity borne out of human nature and experience."

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).


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



The Rules on Electronic Evidence applies only to civil actions, quasi-judicial proceedings, and administrative

Rustan is raising this objection to the admissibility of the obscene picture, 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.