In the case of Ang y
Pascua vs. CA and G.R. No. 182835, April 20,
2010, the one act of a former boyfriend sending to the girl the picture of a
naked woman, not her, but with her face on it was considered an act violence
against women punishable under RA 9262.
The antecedent facts of the case show that complainant (herein called
Ms. A) and accused (herein called Mr. X) were classmates at a University in
Aurora Province. Mr. X courted Miss A
and they became “on-and-off” sweethearts towards the end of 2004. When Miss A learned afterwards that Mr. X had
taken a live-in partner (now his wife), whom he had gotten pregnant, Miss A
broke up with him.
Before Mr. X got married, however, he got in touch with Miss A and tried
to convince her to elope with him, saying that he did not love the woman he was
about to marry. Miss A rejected the
proposal and told Mr. X to take on his responsibility to the other woman and their
child. Miss A changed her cellphone
number but Mr. X somehow managed to get hold of it and sent her text
messages. Mr. X used two cellphone
numbers for sending his messages, namely, 0920-4769301 and 0921-8084768. Miss A replied to his text messages but it
was to ask him to leave her alone.
In the early morning of June 5, 2005, Miss A received through multimedia
message service (MMS) a picture of a naked woman with spread legs and with Miss
A’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 Mr. X
used. Miss A surmised that he copied the
picture of her face from a shot he took when they were in Baguio in 2003
(Exhibit B).
After she got the obscene picture, Miss A got other text messages from Mr.
X. 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 Miss A, written in text messaging shorthand, read: “Madali
lang ikalat yun, my chatrum ang tarlac rayt pwede ring send sa lahat ng chatter.”
Miss A sought the help of the vice mayor of Maria Aurora who referred
her to the police. Under police
supervision, Miss A contacted Mr. X through the cellphone numbers he used in
sending the picture and his text messages.
Miss A asked Mr. X 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 Miss A but the waiting police officers intercepted and arrested
him. They searched him and seized his
Sony Ericsson P900 cellphone and several SIM cards. While Mr. X was being questioned at the
police station, he shouted at Miss A: “Malandi ka kasi!”
Mr. X got the sender’s number and, pretending to be Miss A,
contacted the person. Mr. X claims that
he got back obscene messages from the prankster, which he forwarded to Miss A
from his cellphone. This explained, he
said, why the obscene messages appeared to have originated from his cellphone
number. Mr. X claims that it was Miss A
herself who sent the obscene picture to him.
He presented six pictures of a woman whom he identified as Miss A.
After trial, the Regional Trial Court found the accused Mr. X guilty
beyond reasonable doubt of violation of Section 5(h) RA 9262 and which was
later on affirmed by the Court of Appeals.
On appeal to the Supreme Court, one of the issues raised was 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
Mr. X 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.
Mr. X alleges that today’s women,
like Miss A, 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 Miss A such that she was already
desensitized by them.
In resolving the case, the Court
cited the following pertinent provisions of RA 9262:
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 Court stated that it cannot measure the trauma that Miss A
experienced based on Mr. X’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 Miss A’s head and
face, was clearly an obscene picture and, to Miss A a revolting and offensive
one. Surely, any woman like Miss A, 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 Miss A testified, Mr. X sent the picture with a
threat to post it in the internet for all to see. That must have given her a nightmare.
In conclusion, the Court found that the prosecution has proved each and
every element of the crime charged beyond reasonable doubt and affirmed lower
court’s decision finding Mr. X guilty for violation of Section 5(h) of RA 9262.
No comments:
Post a Comment