One single act of sending a lewd photograph using a multimedia message thru a cellphone is enough to constitute the crime of violence against women thru harassment, even if the parties’ relationship is “on-and-off” and there was no sexual relations involved. This is the first conviction for violation of Republic Act 9262.
The Case:
AAA and BBB were sweethearts for a time before BBB impregnated a woman that subsequently became his wife, thus AAA broke up with BBB. Before he got married, BBB tried to convince to elope, but AAA refused. AAA changed her phone number, but BBB managed to find out her cell phone number, and used two numbers to send her text messages. One morning in June, 2005, AAA received from one of the cellphone numbers used by BBB, the picture of a naked woman with AAA’s face superimposed on the photograph, making it appear that AAA was naked. Aside from the picture of the naked woman with her face on it, AAA also received messages threatening her that the picture will be spread out in chatrooms. Seeking police assistance, AAA asked BBB to meet her in a resort, where BBB was arrested. Seized from him was the cellphone containing the sim card was seized from him.
A case for violation of RA 9262 was filed against BBB. After trial, he was convicted for violation of Section 5(h) of RA 9262, violence against women thru harassment.
In his appeal, he argues that he should not be convicted of the crime, as the single instance of harassment would unduly ruin him. Further, he argues that there was no dating relationship between him and AAA, as defined by the law, as their relationship was an “on and off”, or “away-bati” relationship. Further, BBB argues that the assuming the message sent was obscene, it is not so injurious given today’s modern women are so used to it.
Issue:
Whether or not BBB is guilty of violation of RA 9262 as charged.
Ruling:
BBB is guilty of the crime charged
Elements of the crime of violence against women thru harassment:
“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 violence against women and their children is committed through any of the following acts:
x x x x x
h. Engaging in purposefol, 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, but not be limited to, the following acts:
x 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:
- The offender has or had a sexual or dating relationship with the offended woman;
2. The offender, by himself or through another, commits an acts or series of acts of harassment against the woman; and
3. The harassment alarm or cause substantial emotional or psychological distress to her.
Being romantically involved does not require that the parties have a sexual relationship
The parties to this case agree that the prosecution need 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.)
But it seems clear that the the law did not use inits 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 nouns “romance” to describe a couple’s relationship, i.e. “a love affair.”
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 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 without a sexual intercouse taking place between those involved.
An on and off relationship should not be construed that the parties have no dating relationship.
"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.”
A single act of harassment constitute a violation of the law.
“XXX. But Section 3(a) of RA 9262 punishes “any act or series of acts” that constitute 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.
What is obscene and injurious to an offended woman can of course be only determined based on the circumstance of each case.
“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.”
(G.R. No. 182835, April 20, 2010, Rustan Ang vs. CA and AAA (name of complainant withheld in accordance with SEc. 47 RA 9262)
No comments:
Post a Comment