ChanRobles™ Virtual Law Library | chanrobles.com™  
Main Index Law Library Philippine Laws, Statutes & Codes Latest Legal Updates Philippine Legal Resources Significant Philippine Legal Resources Worldwide Legal Resources Philippine Supreme Court Decisions United States Jurisprudence
 

 
Chan Robles Virtual Law Library
 









 

 
UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT JURISPRUDENCE
 

 
PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT JURISPRUDENCE
 

   
April-2010 Jurisprudence                 

  • [G.R. No. 186419 : April 23, 2010] THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, VS. DARLENE QUIGOD Y MIRANDA, ACCUSED-APPELLANT.

  • [G.R. No. 188105 : April 23, 2010] PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, VS. MONICO DE CHAVEZ Y PERLAS, JUANITO MIƑON Y RODRIGUEZ, AND ASUNCION MERCADO Y MARCIANO, ACCUSED-APPELLANTS.

  • [G.R. No. 186382 : April 05, 2010] PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, VS. DOMINGO PANITERCE, ACCUSED-APPELLANT.

  • [G.R. No. 183788 : April 05, 2010] KRIZIA KATRINA TY-DE ZUZUARREGUI, PETITIONER, VS. THE HON. JOSELITO C. VILLAROSA, IN HIS CAPACITY AS PRESIDING JUDGE OF BRANCH 66 OF THE RTC OF MAKATI CITY, AND FANNIE TORRES-TY, RESPONDENTS.

  • [G.R. No. 151215 : April 05, 2010] PCI LEASING AND FINANCE, INC., PETITIONER, VS. ANTONIO C. MILAN, DOING BUSINESS UNDER THE NAME AND STYLE OF "A. MILAN TRADING," AND LAURA M. MILAN, RESPONDENTS.

  • [G.R. No. 161368 : April 05, 2010] MEDISERV, INC., PETITIONER, VS. COURT OF APPEALS (SPECIAL FORMER 13TH DIVISION) AND LANDHEIGHTS DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION, RESPONDENTS.

  • [G.R. No. 176634 : April 05, 2010] PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, VS. ROMEO MIRANDA Y MICHAEL, ACCUSED-APPELLANT.

  • [G.R. No. 177740 : April 05, 2010] PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, VS. ROMULO GARCIA Y MACEDA, ACCUSED-APPELLANT.

  • [G.R. No. 178063 [Formerly G.R. No. 149894] : April 05, 2010] PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, VS. TIRSO SACE Y MONTOYA, ACCUSED-APPELLANT.

  • [G.R. No. 182114 : April 05, 2010] GENESIS TRANSPORT SERVICE, INC. AND RELY L. JALBUNA, PETITIONERS, VS. UNYON NG MALAYANG MANGGAGAWA NG GENESIS TRANSPORT (UMMGT), AND JUAN TAROY, RESPONDENTS.

  • [G.R. No. 183383 : April 05, 2010] ANABEL BENJAMIN AND RENATO CONSOLACION, PETITIONERS, VS. AMELLAR CORPORATION, RESPONDENT.

  • [A.M. No. RTJ-06-2025 (Formerly OCA IPI No. 06-2472-RTJ) : April 05, 2010] CECILIA GADRINAB SENARLO, COMPLAINANT, VS. JUDGE MAXIMO G.W. PADERANGA, RTC, BRANCH 38, CAGAYAN DE ORO CITY, RESPONDENT.

  • [G.R. No. 157449 : April 06, 2010] NEMESIO GOCO, LYDIA G. FABIAN, NATALIA BROTONEL, FLORA GAYOSO, BLEMIE SORIANO, ELPIDIA NAVALES, SERGIO ROMASANTA, CATALINA NAMIS AND NANCY PAMATIGA, REPRESENTED BY THEIR ATTORNEYS-IN-FACT, LYDIA G. FABIAN, ELPIDIA NAVALES AND NATALIA BROTONEL, PETITIONERS, VS. HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS, ATTY. HICOBLINO CATLY, LOURDES CATLY AND THE REGISTER OF DEEDS, CALAPAN CITY, ORIENTAL MINDORO, RESPONDENTS.

  • [G.R. No. 175040 : April 06, 2010] FRANCIS RAY TALAM, PETITIONER, VS. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION, 4TH DIVISION, CEBU CITY, THE SOFTWARE FACTORY, INC. AND/OR TERESA GRAPILON, OFFICE MANAGER, AND WOLFGANG HERMLE, CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER, RESPONDENTS.

  • [G.R. No. 185849 : April 07, 2010] PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, VS. JONJIE ESOY Y HUNGOY, ROLANDO CIANO Y SOLEDAD AND ROGER BOLALACAO Y DADIVAS, ACCUSED-APPELLANTS.

  • G.R. No. 187005 : April 07, 2010] FERDINAND A. PANGILINAN, PETITIONER, VS. WELLMADE MANUFACTURING CORPORATION, RESPONDENT.

  • [G.R. No. 183628 : April 07, 2010] DANIEL T. SO, PETITIONER, VS. FOOD FEST LAND, INC. RESPONDENT [G.R. NO. 183670] FOOD FEST LAND, INC., PETITIONER, VS. DANIEL T. SO, RESPONDENT.

  • [G.R. No. 179781 : April 07, 2010] SPOUSES BASILIO AND NORMA HILAGA, PETITIONERS, VS. RURAL BANK OF ISULAN (COTABATO, INC., AS REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGER), RESPONDENT.

  • [G.R. No. 177878 : April 07, 2010] SPO1 LEONITO ACUZAR, PETITIONER, VS. APRONIANO JOROLAN AND HON. EDUARDO A. APRESA, PEOPLE'S LAW ENFORCEMENT BOARD (PLEB) CHAIRMAN, NEW CORELLA, DAVAO DEL NORTE, RESPONDENTS.

  • [G.R. No. 161838 : April 07, 2010] REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES, REPRESENTED BY DANTE QUINDOZA, IN HIS CAPACITY AS ZONE ADMINISTRATOR OF THE BATAAN ECONOMIC ZONE, PETITIONER, VS. COALBRINE INTERNATIONAL PHILIPPINES, INC. AND SHEILA F. NERI, RESPONDENTS.

  • [G.R. No. 167766 : April 07, 2010] ENGR. CARLITO PENTECOSTES, JR., PETITIONER, VS. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, RESPONDENT.

  • [G.R. Nos. 187958, 187961 : and 187962, April 07, 2010] MAYOR ABRAHAM N. TOLENTINO, PETITIONER, VS. COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS, JOCELYN RICARDO, ARNEL TARUC, MARLENE CATAN, MARIA THERESA MENDOZA COSTA, FIDELA ROFOLS CASTILLO, DOMINADOR BASSI, ROBERTO MALABANAN HERNANDEZ, NERISSA MANZANO, LEONIDEZ MAGLABE HERNANDEZ, TAGUMPAY REYES, AND ELINO FAJARDO RESPONDENTS. [G.R. Nos. 187966, 187967, and 187968] VICE-MAYOR CELSO P. DE CASTRO, PETITIONER, VS. COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS AND ARNEL TARUC, RESPONDENTS.

  • [G.R. Nos. 189431 & 191120 : April 07, 2010] MAYOR QUINTIN B. SALUDAGA, PETITIONER, VS. COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS AND ARTEMIO BALAG, RESPONDENTS.

  • [G.R. No. 189793 : April 07, 2010] SENATOR BENIGNO SIMEON C. AQUINO III AND MAYOR JESSE ROBREDO, PETITIONERS, VS. COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS REPRESENTED BY ITS CHAIRMAN JOSE A.R. MELO AND ITS COMMISSIONERS, RENE V. SARMIENTO, NICODEMO T. FERRER, LUCENITO N. TAGLE, ARMANDO VELASCO, ELIAS R. YUSOPH AND GREGORIO LARRAZABAL, RESPONDENTS.

  • [A.M. MTJ-04-1558 (Formerly OCA IPI No. 04-1594-MTJ) : April 07, 2010] RE: ANONYMOUS LETTER-COMPLAINT AGAINST HON. MARILOU RUNES- TAMANG, PRESIDING JUDGE, METC PATEROS, METRO MANILA AND PRESIDING JUDGE, METC SAN JUAN, METRO MANILA,

  • [A.M. No. P-07-2338 (Formerly OCA IPI No. 06-2440-P) : April 07, 2010] JONATHAN* A. REBONG, COMPLAINANT, VS. ELIZABETH R. TENGCO, CLERK OF COURT, MUNICIPAL TRIAL COURT, STA. CRUZ, LAGUNA, RESPONDENT.

  • [A.M. No. P-07-2409 : April 07, 2010] RUFINA CHUA, COMPLAINANT, VS. ELEANOR A. SORIO, CLERK OF COURT, METROPOLITAN TRIAL COURT, BRANCH 57, SAN JUAN CITY, RESPONDENT.

  • [A.M. No. RTJ-09-2196 [Formerly A.M. No. 00-1052-RTJ] : April 07, 2010] MARIA PANCHO, DAVID GAYOTIN, LORETO GRAN AND MARINA GRAN, COMPLAINANTS, VS. JUDGE JOSE Y. AGUIRRE, JR., REGIONAL TRIAL COURT, BRANCH 56, HIMAMAYLAN, NEGROS OCCIDENTAL, RESPONDENT.

  • [G.R. No. 186450 : April 08, 2010] NATIONAL WATER RESOURCES BOARD (NWRB), PETITIONER, VS. A. L. ANG NETWORK, INC., RESPONDENT.

  • [G.R. No. 170289 : April 08, 2010] ROSIE QUIDET, PETITIONER, VS. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, RESPONDENT.

  • [G.R. No. 190582 : April 08, 2010] ANG LADLAD LGBT PARTY REPRESENTED HEREIN BY ITS CHAIR, DANTON REMOTO, PETITIONER, VS. COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS, RESPONDENT.

  • [G.R. No. 184179 : April 12, 2010] PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, VS. JULIAN PAJES Y OPONDA AND MIGUEL PAGHUNASAN Y URBANO, ACCUSED-APPELLANTS.

  • [G.R. No. 180542 : April 12, 2010] HUBERT NUƑEZ, PETITIONER, VS. SLTEAS PHOENIX SOLUTIONS, INC., THROUGH ITS REPRESENTATIVE, CESAR SYLIANTENG RESPONDENT,

  • [G.R. No. 183572 : April 13, 2010] YOLANDA M. MERCADO, CHARITO S. DE LEON, DIANA R. LACHICA, MARGARITO M. ALBA, JR., AND FELIX A. TONOG, PETITIONERS, VS. AMA COMPUTER COLLEGE-PARAƑAQUE CITY, INC., RESPONDENT.

  • [G.R. No. 152016 : April 13, 2010] NARCISO TUMIBAY,* RUPERTO TUMIBAY, ELENA TUMIBAY, EDUARDO TUMIBAY, CORAZON TUMIBAY, MANUELA SEVERINO VDA. DE PERIDA AND GREGORIA DELA CRUZ, PETITIONERS, VS. SPS. YOLANDA T. SORO AND HONORIO SORO, SPS. JULITA T. STA. ANA AND FELICISIMO STA. ANA, RESPONDENTS.

  • [G.R. No. 165155 : April 13, 2010] REGIONAL AGRARIAN REFORM ADJUDICATION BOARD, OFFICE OF THE REGIONAL ADJUDICATOR, SAN FERNANDO, PAMPANGA, CECILIA MANIEGO, JOSE BAUTISTA, ELIZA PACHECO, JUANITO FAJARDO, MARIO PACHECO, MARIANO MANANGHAYA AS HEIR OF ANTONIO MANANGHAYA, MARCIANO NATIVIDAD, ROBERTO BERNARDO IN HIS PERSONAL CAPACITY AND AS HEIR OF PEDRO BERNARDO, EDILBERTO NATIVIDAD, AS HEIR OF ISMAEL NATIVIDAD, JEFFREY DIAZ AS HEIR OF JOVITA R. DIAZ, RODOLFO DIMAAPI, ALBERTO ENRIQUEZ, BENIGNO CABINGAO, MARIO GALVEZ, DELFIN SACDALAN, AS HEIR OF AVELINO SANTOS, PETITIONERS,[1] VS. COURT OF APPEALS, VERONICA R. GONZALES, DEOGRACIAS REYES, LEONARDO REYES, ISABELITA BALATBAT, MANUELA REYES, WILHELMINA ALMERO, ARTURO REYES, EPIFANIO REYES, GLORIA REYES, MARIO REYES, TERESITA BALATBAT, LYDIA BALATBAT, FERNANDO BALATBAT, VICENTE BALATBAT, GILBERTO REYES, RENE REYES, EMILIA DUNGO, BRENDA CANCIO, VICTOR REYES, AND EDGARDO REYES, REPRESENTED BY VERONICA R. GONZALES, FOR HERSELF AND AS ATTORNEY-IN-FACT, RESPONDENTS.

  • [G.R. No. 177114 : April 13, 2010] MANOLO A. PEƑAFLOR, PETITIONER, VS. OUTDOOR CLOTHING MANUFACTURING CORPORATION, NATHANIEL T. SYFU, PRESIDENT, MEDYLENE M. DEMOGENA, FINANCE MANAGER, AND PAUL LEE, CHAIRMAN, RESPONDENTS.

  • [G.R. No. 187605 : April 13, 2010] TECHNOL EIGHT PHILIPPINES CORPORATION, PETITIONER, VS. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION AND DENNIS AMULAR, RESPONDENTS.

  • [G.R. No. 187605 : April 13, 2010] TECHNOL EIGHT PHILIPPINES CORPORATION, PETITIONER, VS. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION AND DENNIS AMULAR, RESPONDENTS.

  • [A.M. No. RTJ-08-2158 (Formerly OCA IPI No. 04-2018-RTJ) : April 13, 2010] ALFREDO FAVOR, COMPLAINANT, VS. JUDGE CESAR O. UNTALAN, REGIONAL TRIAL COURT, BRANCH 149, MAKATI CITY, RESPONDENT.

  • [G.R. No. 186540 : April 14, 2010] PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, VS. EMELDO "PAMENTOLAN" OBINA, AMADO RAMIREZ, AND CARLITO "MASOC" BALAGBIS, ACCUSED; EMELDO "PAMENTOLAN" OBINA AND AMADO RAMIREZ, ACCUSED-APPELLANTS.

  • [G.R. No. 183879 : April 14, 2010] ROSITA SY, PETITIONER, VS. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, RESPONDENT.

  • [G.R. No. 187483 : April 14, 2010] ARNEL BALARBAR Y BIASORA, PETITIONER, VS. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, RESPONDENT.

  • [G.R. No. 152234 : April 15, 2010] DIVERSIFIED SECURITY, INC., PETITIONER, VS. ALICIA V. BAUTISTA, RESPONDENT.

  • [G.R. No. 152364 : April 15, 2010] ALEJANDRA S. LAZARO, ASSISTED BY HER HUSBAND, ISAURO M. LAZARO; LEONCIO D. SANTOS; ADOLFO SANTOS; NENITA S. LACAR; ANGELINA S. SAGLES, ASSISTED BY HER HUSBAND, ALBERTO SANTOS, JR.; REGINA SANTOS AND FABIAN SANTOS, PETITIONERS, VS. MODESTA AGUSTIN, FILEMON AGUSTIN, VENANCIA AGUSTIN, MARCELINA AGUSTIN, PAUL A. DALALO, NOEL A. DALALO, GREGORIO AGUSTIN AND BIENVENIDO AGUSTIN, RESPONDENTS.

  • [G.R. No. 168796 : April 15, 2010] SILVINO A. LIGERALDE, PETITIONER, VS. MAY ASCENSION A. PATALINGHUG AND THE REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES, RESPONDENTS.

  • [G.R. No. 173365 : April 15, 2010] JULIO FLORES (DECEASED), SUBSTITUTED BY HIS HEIRS; BENITO FLORES (DECEASED), SUBSTITUTED BY HIS HEIRS; DOLORES FLORES AND VIRGINIA FLORES-DALERE, REPRESENTED BY THEIR ATTORNEY-IN-FACT, JIMENA TOMAS, PETITIONERS, VS. MARCIANO BAGAOISAN, RESPONDENT.

  • [G.R. No. 184971 : April 19, 2010] LAND BANK OF THE PHILIPPINES, PETITIONER, VS. MONET'S EXPORT AND MANUFACTURING CORP., VICENTE V. TAGLE, SR. AND MA. CONSUELO G. TAGLE, RESPONDENTS.

  • [G.R. No. 165133 : April 19, 2010] SPOUSES JOSELINA ALCANTARA AND ANTONIO ALCANTARA, AND SPOUSES JOSEFINO RUBI AND ANNIE DISTOR-RUBI, PETITIONERS, VS. BRIGIDA L. NIDO, AS ATTORNEY-IN-FACT OF REVELEN N. SRIVASTAVA, RESPONDENT.

  • [G.R. No. 166829 : April 19, 2010] TFS, INCORPORATED, PETITIONER, VS. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, RESPONDENT.

  • [G.R. No. 170207 : April 19, 2010] VICENTE CAWIS (SUBSTITUTED BY HIS SON, EMILIO CAWIS), PEDRO BACLANGEN, FELIZA DOMILIES, IVAN MANDI-IT A.K.A. IVAN MANDI-IT LUPADIT, DOMINGO CAWIS AND GERARD LIBATIQUE, PETITIONERS, VS. HON. ANTONIO CERILLES, IN HIS CAPACITY AS THE DENR SECRETARY, HON. MANUEL GEROCHI, IN HIS CAPACITY AS THE DIRECTOR, LANDS, MANAGEMENT BUREAU, AND MA. EDELIZA PERALTA, RESPONDENTS.

  • [G.R. No. 170241 : April 19, 2010] PHILIPPINE SAVINGS BANK, PETITIONER, VS. SPOUSES DIONISIO GERONIMO AND CARIDAD GERONIMO, RESPONDENTS.

  • [G.R. No. 170483 : April 19, 2010] MANUEL C. BUNGCAYAO, SR., REPRESENTED IN THIS CASE BY HIS ATTORNEY-IN-FACT ROMEL R. BUNGCAYAO, PETITIONER, VS. FORT ILOCANDIA PROPERTY HOLDINGS, AND DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION, RESPONDENT.

  • [G.R. No. 170912 : April 19, 2010] ROBERT DINO, PETITIONER, VS. MARIA LUISA JUDAL-LOOT, JOINED BY HER HUSBAND VICENTE LOOT, RESPONDENTS.

  • [G.R. No. 172896 : April 19, 2010] ROƑO SEGURITAN Y JARA, PETITIONER, VS. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, RESPONDENT.

  • [G.R. No. 175532 : April 19, 2010] ROMEO BASAY, JULIAN LITERAL AND JULIAN ABUEVA, PETITIONERS, VS. HACIENDA CONSOLACION , AND/OR BRUNO BOUFFARD III, JOSE RAMON BOUFFARD, MALOT BOUFFARD, SPOUSES CARMEN AND STEVE BUMANLAG, BERNIE BOUFFARD, ANALYN BOUFFARD, AND DONA BOUFFARD, AS OWNERS, RESPONDENTS.

  • [G.R. No. 179935 : April 19, 2010] PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, APPELLEE, VS. ROGELIO ASIS Y LACSON, APPELLANT.

  • [G.R. No. 149121 : April 20, 2010] NATIONAL HOUSING AUTHORITY, PETITIONER, VS. AUGUSTO BASA, JR., LUZ BASA AND EDUARDO S. BASA, RESPONDENTS.

  • [G.R. No. 166620 : April 20, 2010] ATTY. SYLVIA BANDA, CONSORICIA O. PENSON, RADITO V. PADRIGANO, JEAN R. DE MESA, LEAH P. DELA CRUZ, ANDY V. MACASAQUIT, SENEN B. CORDOBA, ALBERT BRILLANTES, GLORIA BISDA, JOVITA V. CONCEPCION, TERESITA G. CARVAJAL, ROSANNA T. MALIWANAG, RICHARD ODERON, CECILIA ESTERNON, BENEDICTO CABRAL, MA. VICTORIA E. LAROCO, CESAR ANDRA, FELICISIMO GALACIO, ELSA R. CALMA, FILOMENA A. GALANG, JEAN PAUL MELEGRITO, CLARO G. SANTIAGO, JR., EDUARDO FRIAS, REYNALDO O. ANDAL, NEPHTALIE IMPERIO, RUEL BALAGTAS, VICTOR R. ORTIZ, FRANCISCO P. REYES, JR., ELISEO M. BALAGOT, JR., JOSE C. MONSALVE, JR., ARTURO ADSUARA, F.C. LADRERO, JR., NELSON PADUA, MARCELA C. SAYAO, ANGELITO MALAKAS, GLORIA RAMENTO, JULIANA SUPLEO, MANUEL MENDRIQUE, E. TAYLAN, CARMELA BOBIS, DANILO VARGAS, ROY-LEO C. PABLO, ALLAN VILLANUEVA, VICENTE R. VELASCO, JR., IMELDA ERENO, FLORIZA M. CATIIS, RANIEL R. BASCO, E. JALIJALI, MARIO C. CARAAN, DOLORES M. AVIADO, MICHAEL P. LAPLANA, GUILLERMO G. SORIANO, ALICE E. SOJO, ARTHUR G. NARNE, LETICIA SORIANO, FEDERICO RAMOS, JR., PETERSON CAAMPUED, RODELIO L. GOMEZ, ANTONIO D. GARCIA, JR., ANTONIO GALO, A. SANCHEZ, SOL E. TAMAYO, JOSEPHINE A.M. COCJIN, DAMIAN QUINTO, JR., EDLYN MARIANO, M.A. MALANUM, ALFREDO S. ESTRELLA, AND JESUS MEL SAYO, PETITIONERS, VS. EDUARDO R. ERMITA, IN HIS CAPACITY AS EXECUTIVE SECRETARY, THE DIRECTOR GENERAL OF THE PHILIPPINE INFORMATION AGENCY AND THE NATIONAL TREASURER, RESPONDENTS.

  • [G.R. No. 169974 : April 20, 2010] SUPERIOR COMMERCIAL ENTERPRISES, INC., PETITIONER, VS. KUNNAN ENTERPRISES LTD. AND SPORTS CONCEPT & DISTRIBUTOR, INC., RESPONDENTS.

  • [G.R. No. 174160 : April 20, 2010] HACIENDA BIGAA, INC., PETITIONER, VS. EPIFANIO V. CHAVEZ (DECEASED), SUBSTITUTED BY SANTIAGO V. CHAVEZ, RESPONDENT.

  • [G.R. No. 179470 : April 20, 2010] NISSAN NORTH EDSA OPERATING UNDER THE NAME MOTOR CARRIAGE, INC., PETITIONER, VS. UNITED PHILIPPINE SCOUT VETERANS DETECTIVE AND PROTECTIVE AGENCY, RESPONDENT.

  • [G.R. No. 182835 : April 20, 2010] RUSTAN ANG Y PASCUA, PETITIONER, THE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS AND IRISH SAGUD, RESPONDENTS.

  • [G.R. No. 187742 : April 20, 2010] PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, VS. CRIZALDO PACHECO Y VILLANUEVA, ACCUSED-APPELLANT.

  • [G.R. No. 188471 : April 20, 2010] FRANCISCO ALONSO, SUBSTITUTED BY MERCEDES V. ALONSO, TOMAS V. ALONSO AND ASUNCION V. ALONSO, PETITIONERS, VS. CEBU COUNTRY CLUB, INC., RESPONDENT, REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES, REPRESENTED BY THE OFFICE OF THE SOLICITOR GENERAL, PUBLIC RESPONDENT.

  • [G.R. No. 191002 : April 20, 2010] ARTURO M. DE CASTRO, PETITIONER, VS. JUDICIAL AND BAR COUNCIL (JBC) AND PRESIDENT GLORIA MACAPAGAL - ARROYO, RESPONDENTS. [G.R. No. 191032] JAIME N. SORIANO, PETITIONER, VS. JUDICIAL AND BAR COUNCIL (JBC), RESPONDENT. [G.R. No. 191057] PHILIPPINE CONSTITUTION ASSOCIATION (PHILCONSA), PETITIONER, VS. JUDICIAL AND BAR COUNCIL (JBC), RESPONDENT. [A.M. No. 10-2-5-SC] IN RE APPLICABILITY OF SECTION 15, ARTICLE VII OF THE CONSTITUTION TO APPOINTMENTS TO THE JUDICIARY, ESTELITO P. MENDOZA, PETITIONER, [G.R. No. 191149] JOHN G. PERALTA, PETITIONER, VS. JUDICIAL AND BAR COUNCIL (JBC). RESPONDENT. PETER IRVING CORVERA; CHRISTIAN ROBERT S. LIM; ALFONSO V. TAN, JR.; NATIONAL UNION OF PEOPLE'S LAWYERS; MARLOU B. UBANO; INTEGRATED BAR OF THE PHILIPPINES-DAVAO DEL SUR CHAPTER, REPRESENTED BY ITS IMMEDIATE PAST PRESIDENT, ATTY. ISRAELITO P. TORREON, AND THE LATTER IN HIS OWN PERSONAL CAPACITY AS A MEMBER OF THE PHILIPPINE BAR; MITCHELL JOHN L. BOISER; BAGONG ALYANSANG BAYAN (BAYAN) CHAIRMAN DR. CAROLINA P. ARAULLO; BAYAN SECRETARY GENERAL RENATO M. REYES, JR.; CONFEDERATION FOR UNITY, RECOGNITION AND ADVANCE-MENT OF GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES (COURAGE) CHAIRMAN FERDINAND GAITE; KALIPUNAN NG DAMAYANG MAHIHIRAP (KADAMAY) SECRETARY GENERAL GLORIA ARELLANO; ALYANSA NG NAGKAKAISANG KABATAAN NG SAMBAYANAN PARA SA KAUNLARAN (ANAKBAYAN) CHAIRMAN KEN LEONARD RAMOS; TAYO ANG PAG-ASA CONVENOR ALVIN PETERS; LEAGUE OF FILIPINO STUDENTS (LFS) CHAIRMAN JAMES MARK TERRY LACUANAN RIDON; NATIONAL UNION OF STUDENTS OF THE PHILIPPINES (NUSP) CHAIRMAN EINSTEIN RECEDES; COLLEGE EDITORS GUILD OF THE PHILIPPINES (CEGP) CHAIRMAN VIJAE ALQUISOLA; AND STUDENT CHRISTIAN MOVEMENT OF THE PHILIPPINES (SCMP) CHAIRMAN MA. CRISTINA ANGELA GUEVARRA; WALDEN F. BELLO AND LORETTA ANN P. ROSALES; WOMEN TRIAL LAWYERS ORGANIZATION OF THE PHILIPPINES, REPRESENTED BY YOLANDA QUISUMBING-JAVELLANA; BELLEZA ALOJADO DEMAISIP; TERESITA GANDIONCO-OLEDAN; MA. VERENA KASILAG-VILLANUEVA; MARILYN STA. ROMANA; LEONILA DE JESUS; AND GUINEVERE DE LEON; AQUILINO Q. PIMENTEL, JR.; INTERVENORS. [G.R. No. 191342] ATTY. AMADOR Z. TOLENTINO, JR., (IBP GOVERNOR-SOUTHERN LUZON), AND ATTY. ROLAND B. INTING (IBP GOVERNOR-EASTERN VISAYAS), PETITIONERS, VS. JUDICIAL AND BAR COUNCIL (JBC), RESPONDENT. [G.R. No. 191420] PHILIPPINE BAR ASSOCIATION, INC., PETITIONER, VS. JUDICIAL AND BAR COUNCIL AND HER EXCELLENCY GLORIA MACAPAGAL-ARROYO, RESPONDENTS.

  • [A.C. No. 8382 : April 21, 2010] ALFREDO B. ROA, COMPLAINANT, VS. ATTY. JUAN R. MORENO, RESPONDENT.

  • [G.R. No. 178902 : April 21, 2010] MANUEL O. FUENTES AND LETICIA L. FUENTES, PETITIONERS, VS. CONRADO G. ROCA, ANNABELLE R. JOSON, ROSE MARIE R. CRISTOBAL AND PILAR MALCAMPO, RESPONDENTS.

  • [G. R. No. L-2875 and L-3114 to L-3203 : April 22, 2010] MANILA YELLOWCAB ET AL., PETITIONER VS. THE PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION ET AL., RESPONDENTS.

  • [G.R. No. 187154 : April 23, 2010] PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, APPELLEE, VS. EDWIN DALIPE Y PEREZ, APPELLANT.

  • [G.R. No. 184760 : April 23, 2010] PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES , PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, VS. PATERNO LORENZO Y CASAS, DEFENDANT-APPELLANT.

  • [G.R. No. 184542 : April 23, 2010] ALMA B. RUSSEL, PETITIONER, VS. TEOFISTA EBASAN AND AGAPITO AUSTRIA, RESPONDENTS.

  • [G.R. No. 184537 : April 23, 2010] QUINTIN B. SALUDAGA AND SPO2 FIEL E. GENIO, PETITIONERS, VS. THE HONORABLE SANDIGANBAYAN, 4TH DIVISION AND THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, RESPONDENTS.

  • [A.M. OCA IPI No. 07-2630-RTJ : April 23, 2010] FRANCISCO P. OCAMPO, COMPLAINANT, VS. JUDGE EVELYN S. ARCAYA-CHUA, REGIONAL TRIAL COURT, BRANCH 144, MAKATI CITY, RESPONDENT. [A.M. NO. RTJ-07-2049] OFFICE OF THE COURT ADMINISTRATOR, COMPLAINANT, VS. JUDGE EVELYN S. ARCAYA-CHUA, REGIONAL TRIAL COURT, BRANCH 144, MAKATI CITY, RESPONDENT. [A.M. NO. RTJ-08-2141 (FORMERLY A.M. NO. 07-5-263- RTC/ RE: INITIAL REPORT ON THE JUDICIAL AUDIT CONDUCTED AT THE REGIONAL TRIAL COURT, BRANCH 144, MAKATI CITY)] OFFICE OF THE COURT ADMINISTRATOR, COMPLAINANT, VS. JUDGE EVELYN S. ARCAYA-CHUA, REGIONAL TRIAL COURT, BRANCH 144, MAKATI CITY, AND COURT STENOGRAPHER VICTORIA C. JAMORA, REGIONAL TRIAL COURT, BRANCH 144, MAKATI CITY, RESPONDENTS. [A.M. NO. RTJ-07-2093] SYLVIA SANTOS, COMPLAINANT, VS. JUDGE EVELYN S. ARCAYA-CHUA, REGIONAL TRIAL COURT, BRANCH 144, MAKATI CITY, RESPONDENT.

  • [G.R. No. 133347 : April 23, 2010] ABS-CBN BROADCASTING CORPORATION, EUGENIO LOPEZ, JR., AUGUSTO ALMEDA-LOPEZ, AND OSCAR M. LOPEZ, PETITIONERS, VS. OFFICE OF THE OMBUDSMAN, ROBERTO S. BENEDICTO, EXEQUIEL B. GARCIA, MIGUEL V. GONZALES, AND SALVADOR (BUDDY) TAN, RESPONDENTS.

  • [G.R. No. 158189 : April 23, 2010] ROBERTO B. KALALO, PETITIONER, VS. OFFICE OF THE OMBUDSMAN, ERNESTO M. DE CHAVEZ AND MARCELO L. AGUSTIN, RESPONDENTS.

  • [G.R. No. 158562 : April 23, 2010] RAMON R. YAP, PETITIONER, VS.COMMISION ON AUDIT, RESPONDENT.

  • [G.R. No. 160270 : April 23, 2010] SUBIC BAY METROPOLITAN AUTHORITY, PETITIONER, VS. MERLINO E. RODRIGUEZ AND WIRA INTERNATIONAL TRADING CORP., BOTH REPRESENTED HEREIN BY HILDA M. BACANI, AS THEIR AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE, RESPONDENTS.

  • [G.R. No. 162017 : April 23, 2010] CALTEX (PHILIPPINES), INC., WILLIAM P. TIFFANY, E.C. CAVESTANY, AND E.M. CRUZ, PETITIONERS, VS. HERMIE G. AGAD AND CALTEX UNITED SUPERVISORS' ASSOCIATION, RESPONDENTS.

  • [G.R. No. 163554 : April 23, 2010] DANNIE M. PANTOJA, PETITIONER, VS. SCA HYGIENE PRODUCTS CORPORATION, RESPONDENT.

  • [G.R. No. 165300 : April 23, 2010] ATTY. PEDRO M. FERRER, PETITIONER, VS. SPOUSES ALFREDO DIAZ AND IMELDA DIAZ, AND REINA COMANDANTE AND SPOUSES BIENVENIDO PANGAN AND ELIZABETH PANGAN, RESPONDENTS.

  • [G.R. No. 167237 : April 23, 2010] ASSOCIATED ANGLO-AMERICAN TOBACCO CORPORATION AND FLORANTE DY, PETITIONERS, VS. HON. COURT OF APPEALS, HON. CRISPIN C. LARON, IN HIS CAPACITY AS PRESIDING JUDGE, REGIONAL TRIAL COURT, REGION 1, BRANCH 44, DAGUPAN CITY, SHERIFF VIRGILIO F. VILLAR, OFFICE OF THE EX-OFFICIO SHERIFF OF PASAY CITY, REGISTER OF DEEDS OF LINGAYEN, PANGASINAN AND SPOUSES PAUL PELAEZ, JR. AND ROCELI MAMISAY PELAEZ, RESPONDENTS.

  • [A.C. No. 8159 (formerly CBD 05-1452) : April 23, 2010] REYNARIA BARCENAS, COMPLAINANT, VS. ATTY. ANORLITO A. ALVERO, RESPONDENT.

  • [G.R. No. 172036 : April 23, 2010] SPOUSES FAUSTINO AND JOSEFINA GARCIA, SPOUSES MELITON GALVEZ AND HELEN GALVEZ, AND CONSTANCIA ARCAIRA REPRESENTED BY THEIR ATTORNEY-IN-FACT JULIANA O. MOTAS, PETITIONERS, VS. COURT OF APPEALS, EMERLITA DE LA CRUZ, AND DIOGENES G. BARTOLOME, RESPONDENTS.

  • [G.R. No. 171434 : April 23, 2010] NATIONAL POWER CORPORATION, PETITIONER, VS. ALAN A. OLANDESCA, RESPONDENT.

  • [G.R. No. 173905 : April 23, 2010] ANTHONY L. NG, PETITIONER, VS. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, RESPONDENT.

  • [G.R. No. 189093 : April 23, 2010] PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, VS. CHRISTOPHER BRINGAS Y GARCIA, BRYAN BRINGAS Y GARCIA, JOHN ROBERT NAVARRO Y CRUZ, ERICKSON PAJARILLO Y BASER (DECEASED), AND EDEN SY CHUNG, ACCUSED-APPELLANTS.

  • [G.R. No. 180917 : April 23, 2010] ATTY. VICENTE E. SALUMBIDES, JR., AND GLENDA ARAƑA, PETITIONERS, VS. OFFICE OF THE OMBUDSMAN , RICARDO AGON, RAMON VILLASANTA, ELMER DIZON, SALVADOR ADUL, AND AGNES FABIAN, RESPONDENTS,

  • [G.R. No. 182341 : April 23, 2010] TRINIDAD GO, JOINED BY HER HUSBAND, GONZALO GO, SR., PETITIONERS, VS. VICENTE VELEZ CHAVES,* RESPONDENT, ALICE CHAVES, RESPONDENT-INTERVENOR, MEGA-INTEGRATED AGRO LIVESTOCK FARMS, INC., RESPONDENT-INTERVENOR,

  • [G.R. No. 183337 : April 23, 2010] CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION, PETITIONER, VS. GREGORIO MAGNAYE, JR., RESPONDENT.

  • [G.R. No. 188104 : April 23, 2010] PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, APPELLEE, VS. BENANCIO MORTERA Y BELARMINO, APPELLANT.

  • [A.M. No. P-05-1935 (Formerly A.M. No. 04-10-599-RTC) : April 23, 2010] OFFICE OF THE COURT ADMINISTRATOR, COMPLAINANT, VS. ATTY. FERMIN M. OFILAS AND MS. ARANZAZU V. BALTAZAR, CLERK OF COURT AND CLERK IV, RESPECTIVELY, REGIONAL TRIAL COURT, SAN MATEO, RIZAL, RESPONDENTS.

  • [A.M. No. P-07-2322 : April 23, 2010] DALMACIO Z. TOMBOC, COMPLAINANT, VS. SHERIFFS LIBORIO M. VELASCO, JR., MEDAR T. PADAO, AND STEPHEN R. BENGUA, ALL OF THE REGIONAL TRIAL COURT, DIPOLOG CITY, RESPONDENTS.

  • [A.M. No. RTJ-09-2190 (Formerly OCA IPI No. 08-2909-RTJ) : April 23, 2010] HADJA SOHURAH DIPATUAN, COMPLAINANT, VS. JUDGE MAMINDIARA P. MANGOTARA, RESPONDENT.

  • [G.R. No. 191124 : April 27, 2010] LUIS A. ASISTIO, PETITIONER, VS. HON. THELMA CANLAS TRINIDAD-PE AGUIRRE, PRESIDING JUDGE, REGIONAL TRIAL COURT, CALOOCAN CITY, BRANCH 129; HON. ARTHUR O. MALABAGUIO, PRESIDING JUDGE, METROPOLITAN TRIAL COURT, CALOOCAN CITY, BRANCH 52; ENRICO R. ECHIVERRI, BOARD OF ELECTION INSPECTORS OF PRECINCT 1811A, BARANGAY 15, CALOOCAN CITY; AND THE CITY ELECTION OFFICER, CALOOCAN CITY, RESPONDENTS.

  • [G.R. No. 162230 : April 28, 2010] ISABELITA C. VINUYA, VICTORIA C. DELA PEƑA, HERMINIHILDA MANIMBO, LEONOR H. SUMAWANG, CANDELARIA L. SOLIMAN, MARIA L. QUILANTANG, MARIA L. MAGISA, NATALIA M. ALONZO, LOURDES M. NAVARO, FRANCISCA M. ATENCIO, ERLINDA MANALASTAS, TARCILA M. SAMPANG, ESTER M. PALACIO, MAXIMA R. DELA CRUZ, BELEN A. SAGUM, FELICIDAD TURLA, FLORENCIA M. DELA PEƑA, EUGENIA M. LALU, JULIANA G. MAGAT, CECILIA SANGUYO, ANA ALONZO, RUFINA P. MALLARI, ROSARIO M. ALARCON, RUFINA C. GULAPA, ZOILA B. MANALUS, CORAZON C. CALMA, MARTA A. GULAPA, TEODORA M. HERNANDEZ, FERMIN B. DELA PEƑA, MARIA DELA PAZ B. CULALA, ESPERANZA MANAPOL, JUANITA M. BRIONES, VERGINIA M. GUEVARRA, MAXIMA ANGULO, EMILIA SANGIL, TEOFILA R. PUNZALAN, JANUARIA G. GARCIA, PERLA B. BALINGIT, BELEN A. CULALA, PILAR Q. GALANG, ROSARIO C. BUCO, GAUDENCIA C. DELA PEƑA, RUFINA Q. CATACUTAN, FRANCIA A. BUCO, PASTORA C. GUEVARRA, VICTORIA M. DELA CRUZ, PETRONILA O. DELA CRUZ, ZENAIDA P. DELA CRUZ, CORAZON M. SUBA, EMERINCIANA A. VINUYA, LYDIA A. SANCHEZ, ROSALINA M. BUCO, PATRICIA A. BERNARDO, LUCILA H. PAYAWAL, MAGDALENA LIWAG, ESTER C. BALINGIT, JOVITA A. DAVID, EMILIA C. MANGILIT, VERGINIA M. BANGIT, GUILLERMA S. BALINGIT, TERECITA PANGILINAN, MAMERTA C. PUNO, CRISENCIANA C. GULAPA, SEFERINA S. TURLA, MAXIMA B. TURLA, LEONICIA G. GUEVARRA, ROSALINA M. CULALA, CATALINA Y. MANIO, MAMERTA T. SAGUM, CARIDAD L. TURLA, ET AL. IN THEIR CAPACITY AND AS MEMBERS OF THE "MALAYA LOLAS ORGANIZATION", PETITIONERS, VS. THE HONORABLE EXECUTIVE SECRETARY ALBERTO G. ROMULO, THE HONORABLE SECRETARY OF FOREIGN AFFAIRS DELIA DOMINGO- ALBERT, THE HONORABLE SECRETARY OF JUSTICE MERCEDITAS N. GUTIERREZ, AND THE HONORABLE SOLICITOR GENERAL ALFREDO L. BENIPAYO, RESPONDENTS.

  • [G.R. No. 190529 : April 29, 2010] PHILIPPINE GUARDIANS BROTHERHOOD, INC. (PGBI), REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY-GENERAL GEORGE "FGBF GEORGE" DULDULAO, PETITIONER, VS. COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS, RESPONDENT.

  • [G.R. No. 166461 : April 30, 2010] HEIRS OF LORENZO AND CARMEN VIDAD AND AGVID CONSTRUCTION CO., INC., PETITIONERS, VS. LAND BANK OF THE PHILIPPINES, RESPONDENT.

  • [G.R. No. 169725 : April 30, 2010] RICARDO V. CASTILLO, PETITIONER, VS. UNIWIDE WAREHOUSE CLUB, INC. AND/OR JIMMY GOW, RESPONDENTS.

  • [G.R. No. 170697 : April 30, 2010] HON. PRIMO C. MIRO, DEPUTY OMBUDSMAN FOR THE VISAYAS, PETITIONER, VS. CARPIO, J., CHAIRPERSON, BRION, DEL CASTILLO, ABAD, AND PEREZ, JJ. REYNALDO M. DOSONO, RESPONDENT.

  • [A.M. No. P-06-2224 [Formerly OCA IPI No. 06-2367-P] : April 30, 2010] ATTY. ALBERTO II BORBON REYES, COMPLAINANT, VS. CLERK OF COURT V RICHARD C. JAMORA, DEPUTY SHERIFF IV LUCITO ALEJO, AND CLERK III EULOGIO T. MONDIDO, ALL OF THE REGIONAL TRIAL COURT, BRANCH 56, MAKATI CITY, RESPONDENTS.

  •  





     
     

     [G.R. No. 182835 : April 20, 2010]   RUSTAN ANG Y PASCUA, PETITIONER, THE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS AND IRISH SAGUD, RESPONDENTS.

     
    SECOND DIVISION

    [G.R. No. 182835 : April 20, 2010]

    RUSTAN ANG Y PASCUA, PETITIONER, THE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS AND IRISH SAGUD, RESPONDENTS.

    D E C I S I O N


    ABAD, J.:

    This case concerns a claim of commission of the crime of violence against women when a former boyfriend sent to the girl the picture of a naked woman, not her, but with her face on it.

    The Indictment

    The public prosecutor charged petitioner-accused Rustan Ang (Rustan) before the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Baler, Aurora, of violation of the Anti-Violence Against Women and Their Children Act or Republic Act (R.A.) 9262 in an information that reads:

    That on or about June 5, 2005, in the Municipality of Maria Aurora, Province of Aurora, Philippines and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the said accused willfully, unlawfully and feloniously, in a purposeful and reckless conduct, sent through the Short Messaging Service (SMS) using his mobile phone, a pornographic picture to one Irish Sagud, who was his former girlfriend, whereby the face of the latter was attached to a completely naked body of another woman making it to appear that it was said Irish Sagud who is depicted in the said obscene and pornographic picture thereby causing substantial emotional anguish, psychological distress and humiliation to the said Irish Sagud. [1]

    The Facts and the Case

    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).[2] 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 (Exhibit B).[3]

    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."[4]

    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. While Rustan was being questioned at the police station, he shouted at Irish: "Malandi ka kasi!"

    Joseph Gonzales, an instructor at the Aurora State College of Technology, testified as an expert in information technology and computer graphics. He said that it was very much possible for one to lift the face of a woman from a picture and superimpose it on the body of another woman in another picture. Pictures can be manipulated and enhanced by computer to make it appear that the face and the body belonged to just one person.

    Gonzales testified that the picture in question (Exhibit A) had two distinct irregularities: the face was not proportionate to the body and the face had a lighter color. In his opinion, the picture was fake and the face on it had been copied from the picture of Irish in Exhibit B. Finally, Gonzales explained how this could be done, transferring a picture from a computer to a cellphone like the Sony Ericsson P900 seized from Rustan.

    For his part, Rustan admitted having courted Irish. He began visiting her in Tarlac in October 2003 and their relation lasted until December of that year. He claimed that after their relation ended, Irish wanted reconciliation. They met in December 2004 but, after he told her that his girlfriend at that time (later his wife) was already pregnant, Irish walked out on him.

    Sometime later, Rustan got a text message from Irish, asking him to meet her at Lorentess Resort as she needed his help in selling her cellphone. When he arrived at the place, two police officers approached him, seized his cellphone and the contents of his pockets, and brought him to the police station.

    Rustan further claims that he also went to Lorentess because Irish asked him to help her identify a prankster who was sending her malicious text messages. Rustan got the sender's number and, pretending to be Irish, contacted the person. Rustan claims that he got back obscene messages from the prankster, which he forwarded to Irish from his cellphone. This explained, he said, why the obscene messages appeared to have originated from his cellphone number. Rustan claims that it was Irish herself who sent the obscene picture (Exhibit A) to him. He presented six pictures of a woman whom he identified as Irish (Exhibits 2 to 7).[5]

    Michelle Ang (Michelle), Rustan's wife, testified that she was sure Irish sent the six pictures. Michelle claims that she received the pictures and hid the memory card (Exhibit 8) that contained them because she was jealous and angry. She did not want to see anything of Irish. But, while the woman in the pictures posed in sexy clothing, in none did she appear naked as in Exhibit A. Further, the face of the woman in Exhibits 2, 4, 5 and 6 could not be seen. Irish denied that she was the woman in those four pictures. As for Exhibits 3 and 7, the woman in the picture was fully dressed.

    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."[6] 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),[7] 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.

    The Issues Presented

    The principal issue in this case is whether or not accused Rustan sent Irish by cellphone message the picture with her face pasted on the body of a nude woman, inflicting anguish, psychological distress, and humiliation on her in violation of Section 5(h) of R.A. 9262.

    The subordinate issues are:

    1. Whether or not a "dating relationship" existed between Rustan and Irish as this term is defined in R.A. 9262;

    2. Whether or not a single act of harassment, like the sending of the nude picture in this case, already constitutes a violation of Section 5(h) of R.A. 9262;

    3. Whether or not the evidence used to convict Rustan was obtained from him in violation of his constitutional rights; and

    4. Whether or not the RTC properly admitted in evidence the obscene picture presented in the case.

    The Court's Rulings

    Section 3(a) of R.A. 9262 provides that violence against women includes an act or acts of a person against a woman with whom he has or had a sexual or dating relationship. Thus:

    SEC. 3. Definition of Terms. - As used in this Act,

    (a) "Violence against women and their children" refers to any act or a series of acts committed by any person against a woman who is his wife, former wife, or against a woman with whom the person has or had a sexual or dating relationship, or with whom he has a common child, or against her child whether legitimate or illegitimate, within or without the family abode, which result in or is likely to result in physical, sexual, psychological harm or suffering, or economic abuse including threats of such acts, battery, assault, coercion, harassment or arbitrary deprivation of liberty.

    x x x x

    Section 5 identifies the act or acts that constitute violence against women and these include any form of harassment that causes substantial emotional or psychological distress to a woman. Thus:

    SEC. 5. Acts of Violence Against Women and Their Children. - The crime of violence against women and their children is committed through any of the following acts:

    x x x x

    h. 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. This shall include, but not be limited to, the following acts:

    x x x x

    5. Engaging in any form of harassment or violence;

    The above provisions, taken together, indicate that the elements of the crime of violence against women through harassment are:

    1. The offender has or had a sexual or dating relationship with the offended woman;

    2. The offender, by himself or through another, commits an act or series of acts of harassment against the woman; and

    3. The harassment alarms or causes substantial emotional or psychological distress to her.

    One. The parties to this case agree that the prosecution needed to prove that accused Rustan had a "dating relationship" with Irish. Section 3(e) provides that a "dating relationship" includes a situation where the parties are romantically involved over time and on a continuing basis during the course of the relationship. Thus:

    (e) "Dating relationship" 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. A casual acquaintance or ordinary socialization between two individuals in a business or social context is not a dating relationship. (Underscoring supplied.)

    Here, Rustan claims that, being "romantically involved," implies that the offender and the offended woman have or had sexual relations. According to him, "romance" implies a sexual act. He cites Webster's Comprehensive Dictionary Encyclopedia Edition which provides a colloquial or informal meaning to the word "romance" used as a verb, i.e., "to make love; to make love to" as in "He romanced her."

    But it seems clear that the law did not use in its provisions the colloquial verb "romance" that implies a sexual act. It did not say that the offender must have "romanced" the offended woman. Rather, it used the noun "romance" to describe a couple's relationship, i.e., "a love affair."[9]

    R.A. 9262 provides in Section 3 that "violence against women x x x refers to any act or a series of acts committed by any person against a woman x x x with whom the person has or had a sexual or dating relationship." Clearly, the law itself distinguishes a sexual relationship from a dating relationship. Indeed, Section 3(e) above defines "dating relationship" while Section 3(f) defines "sexual relations." The latter "refers to a single sexual act which may or may not result in the bearing of a common child." The dating relationship that the law contemplates can, therefore, exist even without a sexual intercourse taking place between those involved.

    Rustan also claims that since the relationship between Irish and him was of the "on-and-off" variety (away-bati), their romance cannot be regarded as having developed "over time and on a continuing basis." But the two of them were romantically involved, as Rustan himself admits, from October to December of 2003. That would be time enough for nurturing a relationship of mutual trust and love.

    An "away-bati" or a fight-and-kiss thing between two lovers is a common occurrence. Their taking place does not mean that the romantic relation between the two should be deemed broken up during periods of misunderstanding. Explaining what "away-bati" meant, Irish explained that at times, when she could not reply to Rustan's messages, he would get angry at her. That was all. Indeed, she characterized their three-month romantic relation as continuous.[10]

    Two. Rustan argues that the one act of sending an offensive picture should not be considered a form of harassment. He claims that such would unduly ruin him personally and set a very dangerous precedent. But Section 3(a) of R.A. 9262 punishes "any act or series of acts" that constitutes violence against women. This 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.

    Rustan alleges that today's women, like Irish, are so used to obscene communications that her getting one could not possibly have produced alarm in her or caused her substantial emotional or psychological distress. He claims having previously exchanged obscene pictures with Irish such that she was already desensitized by them.

    But, firstly, the RTC which saw and heard Rustan and his wife give their testimonies was not impressed with their claim that it was Irish who sent the obscene pictures of herself (Exhibits 2-7). It is doubtful if the woman in the picture was Irish since her face did not clearly show on them.

    Michelle, Rustan's wife, claimed that she deleted several other pictures that Irish sent, except Exhibits 2 to 7. But her testimony did not make sense. She said that she did not know that Exhibits 2 to 7 had remained saved after she deleted the pictures. Later, however, she said that she did not have time to delete them.[11] And, if she thought that she had deleted all the pictures from the memory card, then she had no reason at all to keep and hide such memory card. There would have been nothing to hide. Finally, if she knew that some pictures remained in the card, there was no reason for her to keep it for several years, given that as she said she was too jealous to want to see anything connected to Irish. Thus, the RTC was correct in not giving credence to her testimony.

    Secondly, the Court cannot measure the trauma that Irish experienced based on Rustan's low regard for the alleged moral sensibilities of today's youth. What is obscene and injurious to an offended woman can of course only be determined based on the circumstances of each case. Here, the naked woman on the picture, her legs spread open and bearing Irish's head and face, was clearly an obscene picture and, to Irish a revolting and offensive one. Surely, any woman like Irish, who is not in the pornography trade, would be scandalized and pained if she sees herself in such a picture. What makes it further terrifying is that, as Irish testified, Rustan sent the picture with a threat to post it in the internet for all to see. That must have given her a nightmare.

    Three. 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.[12] 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.[13] 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.

    Four. 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.[14]

    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.[15]

    In conclusion, this Court finds that the prosecution has proved each and every element of the crime charged beyond reasonable doubt.

    WHEREFORE, 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.

    SO ORDERED.

    Carpio, Velasco, Jr.*, Brion, and Perez, JJ., concur.

    Endnotes:


    * Designated as additional member in lieu of Associate Justice Mariano C. Del Castillo, per raffle dated September 14, 2009.

    [1] Docketed as Criminal Case 3493.

    [2] Records, p. 69.

    [3] Id. at 70.

    [4] Exhibit D and sub-markings, id. at 72-76.

    [5] Id. at 156-159.

    [6] Rollo, p. 38.

    [7] Docketed as CA-G.R. CR 30567.

    [8] Penned by then Associate Justice Mariano C. Del Castillo (now a member of this Court), and concurred in by Associate Justices Arcangelita Romilla-Lontok and Romeo F. Barza.

    [9] Webster's New World College Dictionary, Third Edition, p. 1164.

    [10] TSN, April 11, 2006, pp. 22-24.

    [11] TSN, July 19, 2006, pp. 10-12.

    [12] TSN, April 11, 2006, p. 28.

    [13] TSN, June 27, 2006, pp. 23-24.

    [14] People v. Mendoza, G.R. No. 180501, December 24, 2008, 575 SCRA 616, 625-626.

    [15] A.M. No. 01-7-01-SC, Rule 1, Section 2.

     [G.R. No. 182835 : April 20, 2010]   RUSTAN ANG Y PASCUA, PETITIONER, THE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS AND IRISH SAGUD, RESPONDENTS.




    Back to Home | Back to Main

     

    QUICK SEARCH

    cralaw

               

    cralaw



     
      Copyright © ChanRobles Publishing Company Disclaimer | E-mail Restrictions
    ChanRobles™ Virtual Law Library | chanrobles.com™
     
    RED