Miguel Alfonso L.

Gonzalez
Student Number: 3883
Block D

Rustan Ang, petitioner vs. Court of Appeals and Irish Sagud, respondents
 Case at bar is a complaint against the petitioner for Violation of Sec.5(h) of R.A.
9252, more commonly known as the Anti-Violence Act Against Women and their
Children.
Facts of the case
 Petitioner, who was classmates with the respondent Irish Sagud at Wesleyan
University, had an on and off relationship until 2004. When petitioner cheated on
respondent, Irish acquired a new mobile number which the petitioner eventually got
his hands on. Petitioner allegedly sent an obscene pornographic picture to the
respondent via SMS, where petitioner’s phone was seized during a police operation
with Sagud at Lorentess Resort to catch an alleged prankster.
 Irish Sagud filed a complaint against the petitioner alleging him of violating R.A.
9252 at the Regional Trial Court (RTC) in Aurora. The pertinent section of the law
provides that one of the acts of violence against women and their children is
“Engaging in purposeful, knowing, or reckless conduct, personally or through
another, that alarms or causes substantial emotional or psychological distress to the
woman or her child.”, which include harassment and/or violence. The RTC ruled that
Sagud’s statement was credible as she delivered it with candor and honesty, and her
emotions during her testimony made the statements even more genuine. RTC ruled
that the petitioner was guilty for violation of the aforementioned section of R.A. 9252.
Issues for the Court of Appeals (CA) to resolve
 Does Rustan’s sending of the picture to Irish constitute violation of Sec. 5 of R.A.
9252?
 Sub issues to be discussed in the ruling, such as the verification of the existence of a
dating relationship, and the proper admission of evidence.

Ruling of the court

 Yes, the sending of the obscene pornographic picture that depicts respondent’s face
on a naked body that wasn’t hers constitutes violation of Sec. 5 of R.A. 9252. The
existence of the dating relationship is affirmed by the R.A. in the case at bar, despite
the presence of on-and-off status. The evidence, namely the cellphone containing the
picture and messages of petitioner to respondent, was not used in the case as the court
only needed the testimonies of the respondent to affirm the crime. The Rules on
Electronic Evidence do not apply here for this is a criminal case, so the evidence need
not be authenticated.
 The Court of Appeals denies petition to reconsider, affirms RTC decision.