Irish Sagud and Rustan Ang were former sweethearts. Their relationship was anything but smooth. According to Irish, they were an “on-and-off” couple. Eventually, she discovered that Rustan had impregnated another woman—the woman who would later become his wife. Irish ended the relationship and tried to move on with her life.

Rustan did not. Even after the breakup, he continued contacting Irish through text messages. At one point, he even tried to convince her to elope with him despite the fact that another woman was already carrying his child. Irish refused and changed her cellphone number in an attempt to cut off communication. Somehow, Rustan still managed to obtain her new number.

One morning, Irish received a multimedia message containing a shocking image. The picture showed a completely naked woman with her legs spread apart. Superimposed on the naked body was Irish’s face. The image made it appear that the naked woman was Irish herself.

According to Irish, Rustan later boasted that creating such images was easy and threatened to spread the picture through online chat rooms and other internet platforms. Irish sought police assistance. Acting under police supervision, she contacted Rustan and arranged a meeting. When he arrived, the police arrested him.

Rustan denied responsibility. According to him, he was merely helping Irish identify another person who had been harassing her. He claimed that he merely forwarded messages sent by an unknown prankster. He also suggested that Irish herself had previously sent provocative photographs.

The trial court did not believe him. Neither did the Supreme Court.

The Court first addressed whether Republic Act No. 9262, the Anti-Violence Against Women and Their Children Act, could apply.

Rustan argued that the law did not apply because he and Irish were no longer together and because they had never engaged in sexual relations.

The Supreme Court disagreed. The Court explained that the law covers not only wives and former wives, but also women with whom the offender has or had a dating relationship. A dating relationship does not require sexual intercourse. It is enough that the parties were romantically involved over time and on a continuing basis. The Court found that Irish and Rustan clearly had such a relationship.

The Court next considered whether a single act could constitute harassment.

Again, the answer was yes. According to the Court, the law punishes “any act or series of acts” that causes substantial emotional or psychological distress. A single act of harassment is enough if it produces the required harm. Otherwise, isolated acts of abuse would effectively be immunized from punishment.

The Court had little difficulty concluding that the fake nude image was deeply offensive. The image depicted a naked woman with Irish’s face attached to it, making it appear that she had posed nude. To make matters worse, Rustan threatened to distribute the image online. The Court found that such conduct naturally caused emotional anguish, humiliation, and psychological distress.

Accordingly, the Supreme Court affirmed Rustan’s conviction for violating Section 5(h) of the Anti-Violence Against Women and Their Children Act.

Pascua v. Sagud. G.R. No. 182835, April 20, 2010