ANG vs.

COURT OF APPEALS
G.R. No. 182835, April 20, 2010
Facts:
Complainant Irish Sagud and accused Rustan Ang were sweethearts. However,
Irish broke up with him when she learned he had taken a live-in partner whom he
had gotten pregnant. Rustan convinced her to elope with him for he did not love the
woman whom he was about to marry, but Irish rejected the proposal. She changed
her cellphone number but Rustan managed to get hold of it and send her text
messages.

Irish received through multimedia message a picture of a naked woman with

spread legs and with her face superimposed on the figure. The senders cellphone
number, stated in the message, was one of the numbers used by Rustan. After she
got the obscene picture, she received text messages from Rustan threatening her
that he will spread the picture he sent through the Internet.

Under police supervision, Irish contacted Rustan through the cellphone number he
used in sending the picture and text message. She asked him to meet her at a
resort and he did. Upon parking his motorcycle and walking towards Irish, the police
intercepted and arrested him. The police seized his cellphone and several SIM cards.

Issue:
Whether or not the RTC properly admitted in evidence the obscene picture
presented in the case.
Held:
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 of
Electronic Evidence.

The objection is too late since he should have objected to the admission of the
pictures on such ground at the time it was offered in evidence. He should be
deemed to have waived such ground for objection.

Besides, 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.

Petition denied.