Digest 4: RUSTAN ANG y PASCUA vs. THE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS and IRISH SAGUD

G.R. No. 182835 April 20, 2010
RUSTAN ANG y PASCUA, Petitioner,
vs.
THE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS and IRISH SAGUD, Respondents.

Facts:  The herein petitioner, Rustan Ang and the private respondent, Irish Sagud were lovers during their college days in Wesleyan University in Maria Aurora Province of Aurora.  Eventually, Irish heard that Rustan has a live-in-partner whom Rustan got pregnant.  Because of this, Irish decided to broke up with Rustan.  The latter asked Irish to elope with him, since he does not love the other girl, to which Irish refused.  To pressure Irish to get back with him he send multimedia messages to Irish, bearing a picture of a naked woman, who spread her legs with a face of Irish superimposed on it.  Rustan even added in the text message that it is easy for him to spread those pictures in the internet.  Because of this scenario, Irish, asked help from the Vic-Mayor of the municipality, to which coordination with the local police was made.  Entrapment operation was conducted and arrested Rustan.

Issue:  Whether or not Rustan’s contention that the multimedia messages should not be made admissible for the basic reason that such was not properly authenticated as provided by the Rules on Electronic Documents?

Held:  No, the Supreme Court mentioned the following:
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.
Indeed the assertion of Rustan will not be given merit for the basic reason that such contention was only raised before this court to which the latter had a presumption that Rustan has waived his right to question the authenticity of the pictures.  Moreover, the court avers that such assertion of Rustan cannot be made possible in criminal case; such can only be made before, civil and administrative actions.
The high court denied the petition.