Ang v. Court of Appeals (GR no.

182835)

Abad, J.

Facts:

Rustan Ang and Irish Sagud were “on-and-off” sweethearts until it was revealed that the former
had a live-in partner whom he had made pregnant. As a result, Irish broke up with him. Prior to
his marriage with his live-in partner however, Rustan visited Irish and asked her to elope with
him because she was the one he loved instead of his wife-to-be. Irish rejected his proposal and
changed her phone number as result. Despite this, Rustan managed to acquire her phone
number and sent her messages from two separate phone numbers (0920 476 9301 and 0921
808 4768). Irish replied to said messages in order to ask him to leave her alone. Afterwards,
Rustan sent an SMS to Irish through one of his phone numbers (0921 808 4768) containing a
nude photo with Irish’s face superimposed into it. Rustan told Irish that it is easy for him to
create such a scandalous photo and threatened to spread said photo to the internet. To address
the situation, Irish approached Vice Mayor Maria Aurora for help who then referred her to the
police. Under the direction of the police, Irish contacted Rustan and asked him to meet her at
the Lorentess resort and was arrested by the police upon his arrival. During the search, the
police found a Sony Ericsson P900 phone along with multiple SIM cards.

Irish filed a case in violation of Sec 5 (h) of Republic Act 9262. Rustan Ang deny said allegations
but the RTC found Irish’s testimony credible. As a result, RTC found Rustan guilty of the said
crime. Rustan appealed but denied, then filed for certiorari.

Issues:

The principal issue in this case is whether or not the act of Rustan sending Irish by cellphone
message a picture with her face pasted on the body of a nude woman, a violation of Section 5(h)
of R.A. 9262 (Anti-Violence Against Women and Their Children Act).

Specifically, the following subordinate issues were raised:

1) Whether or not a “dating relationship” existed between Rustan and Irish as this term is
defined by the act;

2) and whether or not a single act of harassment, like sending a nude picture, constitutes a
violation of Sec 5 (h) of the aforementioned act.

Ruling:

1) Yes. Dating relationship as defined in Section 3 “refers to a situation wherein the parties live
as husband and wife without the benefit of marriage or are romantically involved over time
and on a continuing basis during the course of the relationship. Although Rustan Ang
claimed that no dating relationship exists between them because they are not romantically
involved as he defined it as a relationship of sexual nature, the law defines a romantically
involved relationship to describe a couple’s relationship (a love affair). Which was existent
 between the two. In addition, despite being in an on-and-off relationship, it is characterized
nonetheless that their three-month romantic relation as continuous in nature.
2) Yes. Section 3 (a) of RA 9262 punishes “any act or series of acts” that constitutes violence
against women. In other words, it 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.

In light of these, the court AFFIRMED the decision of RTC