Title: Ang vs.

CA
G.R. No. 182835 April 20, 2010
RUSTAN ANG y PASCUA, Petitioner,
vs.
THE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS and IRISH SAGUD, Respondents.

RULING: “The Court DENIES the petition and AFFIRMS the decision of the Court of
Appeals in CA-G.R. CR 30567 dated January 31, 2008 and its resolution dated April 25,
2008.”
Defendant Ang is guilty of violating section 5(h) of RA 9262 ("Anti-Violence Against
Women and Their Children Act of 2004)

Facts:
On or about June 5, 2005, Rustan Ang sends an obscene (Irish’s head superimposed on
another naked woman’s body) photoshopped picture to his former girlfriend, Irish Sagud using
the phone number 0921-8084768. Ms. Sagud is suing for emotional damages because of the
photo.
Ang and Sagud are “on-and-off sweethearts,” Sagud terminates the relationship after finding
that Ang’s live-in partner, Michelle, was pregnant. She rejects his later offer to elope with him.
After being sent the photo, Sagud requests help from the vice mayor of Maria Aurora and the
police. Police officers arrested Ang at Lorentess Resort and seized his Sony Ericsson P900
phone and sim cards.
Joseph Gonzales, an instructor at the Aurora State College of Technology, testified as an expert in
information technology and computer graphics. He testified that the photo is possibly doctored due
to the face being disproportionate and lighter than the rest of the body.
Rustan Ang claims that the obscene messages were forwarded from a prankster while the obscene
photos were authentic and sent to him by Sagud herself. His wife, Michelle, also claims that the
photos were sent indeed by Sagud, however she deleted the rest of them due to jealousy. The
remaining photos in the memory card was of a woman dressed (sexy clothing: Exhibits 2,4,5 and 6
and fully clothed: exhibits 3 and 7) and her face obscured.
Issue/s:
I. Whether Ang violated section 5(h) of RA 9262.
A. Whether there was a sexual or “dating relationship.”
B. Whether there was harassment.
C. Whether the harassment caused significant distress.
II. Whether the evidence is:
A. Admissible in a court of law.
B. Taken without violating Ang’s constitutional rights.
C. The obscene photo “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)
Decisions:
RULING: “The Court DENIES the petition and AFFIRMS the decision of the Court of Appeals in
CA-G.R. CR 30567 dated January 31, 2008 and its resolution dated April 25, 2008.”
Defendant Ang is guilty of violating section 5(h) of RA 9262 ("Anti-Violence Against Women and
Their Children Act of 2004)
Reasoning (rationale):
Regarding the issues;
I.A.: Despite being an on-off relationship, Ang admits that they were romantically involved from
October to December 2003, which is already sufficient for love and nurturing to develop -
therefore, a dating relationship.
I.B.: Ang claims that a single act does not constitute harassment, however Sec. 3(A) of RA 9262
would consider it so as long as the act results in violence/harm.
I.C:Ang claims that Sagud was not harmed by the photos, as their previous communication
showed that she was (1) desensitized to obscene communication and (2) sent the photos
herself. (1) Is subjective on a case-by-case basis; Sagud being a regular woman threatened
with having the photos shared to the internet would be shamed and injured. (2) The woman in
the photos from the memory card provided by Michelle has her face obscured so her identity
cannot be proven.
II.A.B.: That the phone numbers (0920-4769301 and 0921-8084768) belonged to him was proven
when Sagud and the police used it to summon him at Lorentess Resort. Ang was also unable to give
the number of the prankster who he claimed forwarded the obscene messages to him.
II.C.: (1) Ang objected to the obscene photo being used as evidence too late and (2) “the Rules on
Electronic Evidence applies only to civil actions, quasi-judicial proceedings, and administrative
proceedings,” but not to criminal cases.

Presiding: Roberto A. Abad, Associate Justice

Concur: ANTONIO T. CARPIO, PRESBITERO J. VELASCO, JR., ARTURO D. BRION, JOSE
PORTUGAL PEREZ

Separate opinions: N/A

Analysis:
Emotional appeal was a part of this case due to the subjective nature of “harm.” Ms. Sagud’s
spontaneity, visible emotion congruent with her testimony made her appear more credible. On
the other hand, the testimony of Rustan Ang and Michelle were discredited due to its
inconsistency and difficulty in being proven. Ang also loses credibility by calling Ms. Sagud
“malandi” and threatening to spread the photos in a chatroom, implying malice on his part.
As a precedent the case recognizes violence through digital means (an obscene photo in this
instance); something that is more relevant today due to the ubiquitousness of communication
technology than it was in the 2005 case.