case digests part 3

G.R. No. 182835               April 20, 2010

RUSTAN ANG y PASCUA, Petitioner, 
vs.
THE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS and IRISH SAGUD, Respondents.

Facts:

                Complainant and herein petitioner were former classmates during college when petitioner courted the complainant and had a relationship with her. It was ended when complainant found out that petitioner had a live-in partner whom he had impregnated. 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.

                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 threatening her that it would be very easy for him to upload the picture in the internet. 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.

Issue:

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.

Held:

                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. 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.

A.M. No. RTJ-07-2092             December 8, 2008
Formerly OCA I.P.I. No. 07-2685-RTJ

EVA LUCIA Z. GEROY, complainant, 
vs.
HON. DAN R. CALDERON, Presiding Judge, Branch 26 of the Regional Trial Court of Medina, Misamis Oriental, respondent.

Facts:

                Complainant alleged that she was introduced by her cousin Cesar Badilas (Badilas) to respondent in a Rotary Club dinner on November 30, 2002. Thereafter, respondent always communicated with her, visited her at her house and showered her with food and gifts, making her believe that he was single or separated as he acted like a bachelor towards her. They spent most of their time in his house in Upper Balulang, Cagayan de Oro City where complainant would sleep over during weekdays and spend entire weekends with respondent. They would dine in public places, watch movies, go to malls, groceries and hear mass together. Respondent lent her money and she ran errands for him such as making reservations for his trips and purchasing items for his house, encode decisions, pay bills and encash checks for him. Respondent paid her tuition in a caregiver course and gave her a cell phone for an e-load business.

There were times, however, when complainant felt she was being abused by respondent, such as when he wanted to take a picture of them naked after they had sexual contact, when he asked her to buy abortive pills because his son impregnated his girlfriend, and when he (respondent) forced her to utter vulgar words during their intercourse. In August 2005, complainant went to Xavier University where respondent was a professor, and respondent uttered hurtful words towards her. On December 24, 2005, complainant received a call from respondent and his wife degrading and threatening her. She also received a text message from respondent on December 29, 2005 saying that she had made herself a "despicable disease." Respondent's wife and daughter also called complainant, confronting and threatening her. On March 21, 2007, complainant saw respondent in a restaurant with a woman and when she approached respondent, he cursed and looked angrily at her and asked the guard to drive her out. Respondent then went to his car and locked the doors. Complainant knocked at the window near the driver's seat but respondent arrogantly looked at her and maneuvered his car, nearly hitting her, as he sped past her.

Issue:

                Whether or not the act of the petitioner is immoral and deserves necessary disciplinary actions

Held:

                The Court held in the affirmative.

As the Court held in Madredijo v. Layao, Jr.:

[I]mmorality has not been confined to sexual matters, but includes conduct inconsistent with rectitude, or indicative of corruption, indecency, depravity and dissoluteness; or is willful, flagrant, or shameless conduct showing moral indifference to opinions of respectable members of the community and an inconsiderate attitude toward good order and public welfare.

Immorality under Rule 140 of the Rules of Court, as amended by A.M. No. 01-8-10-SC dated September 11, 2001 on the discipline of Justices and Judges, is a serious charge which carries any of the following sanctions: (1) dismissal from the service, forfeiture of all or part of the benefits as the Court may determine, and disqualification from reinstatement or appointment to any public office, including government-owned or controlled corporations, provided, however, that the forfeiture of benefits shall in no case include accrued leave credits; (2) suspension from office without salary and other benefits for more than three but not exceeding six months; or (3) a fine of more than P20,000.00 but not exceeding P40,000.00.

In recommending the penalty of suspension for six months without salary and other benefits, instead of the ultimate penalty of dismissal from the service, the Investigating Justice gave weight to the fact that complainant was equally, if not more guilty in the whole sordid affair. He also considered respondent's length of service and the fact that this was the first time respondent had been charged with immorality, and it did not appear from the records that he had been previously charged with any offense or that there was any pending administrative case against him.