RUSTAN ANG y PASCUA, Petitioner, vs.

THE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS

and IRISH SAGUD, Respondents.

G.R. No. 182835; April 20, 2010

Facts:
After receiving from the accused Rustan via multimedia message service (MMS) a
picture of a naked woman with her face superimposed on the figure, Complainant
filed an action against said accused for violation of the Anti-Violence Against Women
and Their Children Act or Republic Act (R.A.) 9262.
The senders cellphone number, stated in the message, was 0921-8084768, one of
the numbers that Rustan used. Irish surmised that he copied the picture of her face
from a shot he took when they were in Baguio in 2003. The accused said to have
boasted that it would be easy for him to create similarly scandalous pictures of her
and threatened to spread the picture he sent through the internet.
The trial court later found Rustan guilty of the violation of Section 5(h) of R.A. 9262.
On Rustans appeal to the Court of Appeals (CA), the latter rendered a decision
affirming the RTC decision. The CA denied Rustans motion for reconsideration in a
resolution dated April 25, 2008. Thus, Rustan filed the present for review on
certiorari.
Issue:
Whether or not the RTC properly admitted in evidence the obscene picture
presented in the case?
Held:
Yes. The Supreme Court affirms the decision of the CA.
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).
However, Rustan is raising this objection to the admissibility of the obscene picture
for the first time before the Supreme 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.

Moreover, 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.

In conclusion, the Court finds that the prosecution has proved each and every
element of the crime charged beyond reasonable doubt.

CASE DIGEST: People v. Genosa, GR No. 135981

Title: People v. Genosa, GR No. 135981

Subject Matter: Applications of the provisions of Art. 11(1) and Art. 14 of the Revised
Penal Code

Facts:

Marivic Genosa, the appellant, on November 15, 1995, attacked and wounded his
husband which ultimately led to his death. According to the appellant, she did not
provoke her husband when she got home that night and it was her husband who
began the provocation. The appellant said she was frightened that her husband
would hurt her and she wanted to make sure she would deliver her baby safely.

The appellant testified that during her marriage she had tried to leave her husband
at least five times, but that Ben would always follow her and they would reconcile.
The appellant said that the reason why Ben was violent and abusive towards her
that night was because he was crazy about his recent girlfriend, Lulu Rubillos. The
appellant, after being interviewed by specialist, has been shown to be suffering
from Battered Woman Syndrome. The appellant with a plea of self-defense admitted
the killing of her husband. She was found guilty of the crime of parricide, with the
aggravating circumstance of treachery, for the husband was attacked while asleep.

Issues:
(1)

Whether or not appellant acted in self-defense.

(2)

Whether or not treachery attended the killing.

Held:

For the first issue, the SC held that the defense failed to establish all the elements
of self-defense arising from battered woman syndrome, to wit: (a) Each of the
phases of the cycle of violence must be proven to have characterized at least two
battering episodes between the appellant and her intimated partner; (b) The final
acute battering episode preceding the killing of the batterer must have produced in
the battered persons mind an actual fear of an imminent harm from her batterer
and an honest belief that she needed to use force in order to save her life, and; (c)
At the time of the killing, the batterer must have posed probable not necessarily
immediate and actual grave harm to the accused based on the history of violence
perpetuated by the former against the latter.

For the second issue, the SC ruled out treachery as an aggravating circumstance
because the quarrel or argument that preceded the killing must have forewarned
the victim of the assailants aggression.

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v. SHIRLEY A. CASIO

G.R. No. 211465, December 03, 2014, SECOND DIVISION, (Leonen, J.)

Trafficking in persons can still be committed even if the victim gives consent.
International Justice Mission (IJM) coordinated with the police in order to entrap
persons engaged in human trafficking in Cebu City. A team of police
operatives were designated as decoys, pretending to be tour guides looking for girls
to entertain their guests. The team went to Queensland Motel and rented Rooms 24
and 25. These rooms were adjacent to each other. Room 24 was designated for the
transaction while Room 25 was for the rest of the police team. The team proceeded
to D. Jakosalem Street in Barangay Kamagayan, Cebu Citys red light district. Shirley
Casio noticed them and called their attention by saying Chicks mo dong? (Do you
like girls, guys?). The police operatives told Casio that they have a guests waiting in
the hotel. After a few minutes, accused returned with AAA and BBB The team
convinced Casio to come with them to Queensland Motel and was soon arrested by
police operatives. The trial court found Casio guilty of violating R.A. 9208,

otherwise known as the Anti-Trafficking in Persons Act of 2003.

Casio argues that there was no valid entrapment. Instead, she was instigated
into committing the crime. The police did not conduct prior surveillance and did
not even know who their subject was. She denied being a pimp and asserted that
she
was a laundrywoman. In addition, AAA admitted that she worked as a prostitute.
Thus, it was her decision to display herself to solicit customers.

ISSUES:
1. Is the entrapment of Casio valid?
2. Is Casio liable under of R.A. 9208?

RULING:

There is a valid entrapment

There is entrapment when law officers employ ruses and schemes to ensure
the apprehension of the criminal while in the actual commission of the crime. There
is instigation when the accused is induced to commit the crime. The difference in
the nature of the two lies in the origin of the criminal intent. In entrapment, the
mens
rea originates from the mind of the criminal. The idea and the resolve to commit the
crime come from him. In instigation, the law officer conceives the commission of
the crime and suggests to the accused who adopts the idea and carries it into
execution. As testified by the police operatives, Casio called out their attention by
saying Chicks mo dong? If accused had no predisposition to commit the offense,
then she most likely would not have asked the police operatives if they wanted girls.

Casio is liable under R.A. No. 9208

Knowledge or consent of the minor is not a defense under Republic Act
No. 9208. Trafficking in persons can still be committed even if the victim gives
consent. Under Section 3(a) of Republic Act No. 9208 wherein it is stated that
trafficking in persons refers to the recruitment, transportation, transfer or harboring,
or receipt of persons with or without the victim's consent or knowledge.