Ex-Boyfriend found guilty of violence against women by sending picture of a naked woman.

Ex-Boyfriend found guilty of violence against women by sending picture of a naked woman.

In the case of  RUSTAN ANG vs. CA and Sagud, GR. No. 182835,  April 20, 2010, the ex-boyfriend was found guilty of violation of  Anti-violence against women and their children (RA 9262) when he sent to his girlfriend the picture of a naked woman, not her, but with her face on it.

The information 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.”

One of the issues in this case is 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;

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.

The boyfriend 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.

Supreme Court said that 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.

Secondly, the Court cannot measure the trauma that Irish experienced based on the ex-boyfriend’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, her ex-boyfriend sent the picture with a threat to post it in the internet for all to see.  That must have given her a nightmare.

The Supreme Court affirmed the conviction of the ex-boyfriend of violation of Anti-Violence against women and their children.