Facts:
The
evidence for the prosecution shows that complainant Irish Sagud (Irish) and
accused Rustan were classmates at Wesleyan University in Aurora Province.
Rustan courted Irish and they became "on-and-off" sweethearts towards
the end of 2004. When Irish learned afterwards that Rustan had taken a live-in
partner (now his wife), whom he had gotten pregnant, Irish broke up with him.
Before
Rustan got married, however, he got in touch with Irish and tried to convince
her to elope with him, saying that he did not love the woman he was about to
marry. Irish rejected the proposal and told Rustan to take on his
responsibility to the other woman and their child. Irish changed her cellphone
number but Rustan somehow managed to get hold of it and sent her text messages.
Rustan used two cellphone numbers for sending his messages, namely,
0920-4769301 and 0921-8084768. Irish replied to his text messages but it was to
ask him to leave her alone.
In
the early morning of June 5, 2005, Irish received through multimedia message
service (MMS) a picture of a naked woman with spread legs and with Irish’s face
superimposed on the figure (Exhibit A). The sender’s cellphone number, stated in the
message, was 0921-8084768, one of the numbers that Rustan used. Irish surmised
that he copied the picture of her face from a shot he took when they were in
Baguio in 2003.
After
she got the obscene picture, Irish got other text messages from Rustan. He
boasted that it would be easy for him to create similarly scandalous pictures
of her. And he threatened to spread the picture he sent through the internet.
One of the messages he sent to Irish, written in text messaging shorthand,
read:
"Madali lang ikalat
yun, my chatrum ang tarlac rayt pwede ring send sa lahat ng chatter."
Irish
sought the help of the vice mayor of Maria Aurora who referred her to the
police. Under police supervision, Irish contacted Rustan through the cellphone
numbers he used in sending the picture and his text messages. Irish asked
Rustan to meet her at the Lorentess Resort in Brgy. Ramada, Maria Aurora, and
he did. He came in a motorcycle. After parking it, he walked towards Irish but
the waiting police officers intercepted and arrested him. They searched him and
seized his Sony Ericsson P900 cellphone and several SIM cards.
After
trial, the RTC found Irish’s testimony completely credible, given in an honest
and spontaneous manner. The RTC 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." Thus, in its Decision dated August 1, 2001,
the RTC found Rustan guilty of the violation of Section 5(h) of R.A. 9262.
On
Rustan’s appeal to the Court of Appeals (CA), the latter rendered a decision dated January
31, 2008,8 affirming the RTC decision. The CA denied Rustan’s motion for
reconsideration in a resolution dated April 25, 2008. Thus, Rustan filed the
present for review on certiorari.
Issue:
Whether
or not the RTC properly admitted in evidence the obscene picture presented in
the case.
Held:
Rustan
argues that, since he was arrested and certain items were seized from him
without any warrant, the evidence presented against him should be deemed
inadmissible. But the fact is that the prosecution did not present in evidence
either the cellphone or the SIM cards that the police officers seized from him
at the time of his arrest. The prosecution did not need such items to prove its
case. Exhibit C for the prosecution was but a photograph depicting the Sony
Ericsson P900 cellphone that was used, which cellphone Rustan admitted owning
during the pre-trial conference.
Actually,
though, the bulk of the evidence against him consisted in Irish’s testimony
that she received the obscene picture and malicious text messages that the
sender’s cellphone numbers belonged to Rustan with whom she had been previously
in communication. Indeed, to prove that the cellphone numbers belonged to
Rustan, Irish and the police used such numbers to summon him to come to
Lorentess Resort and he did. Consequently, the prosecution did not have to
present the confiscated cellphone and SIM cards to prove that Rustan sent those
messages.
Moreover,
Rustan admitted having sent the malicious text messages to Irish. His defense
was that he himself received those messages from an unidentified person who was
harassing Irish and he merely forwarded the same to her, using his cellphone.
But Rustan never presented the cellphone number of the unidentified person who
sent the messages to him to authenticate the same. The RTC did not give
credence to such version and neither will this Court. Besides, it was most
unlikely for Irish to pin the things on Rustan if he had merely tried to help
her identify the sender.
Also,
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).
But,
firstly, Rustan is raising this objection to the admissibility of the obscene
picture, Exhibit A, 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. 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.
_______________________
Full text of the case available at: http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2010/apr2010/gr_182835_2010.html
No comments:
Post a Comment