ANG vs. COURT OF APPEALS           
                      G.R. No. 182835, April 20, 2010

Facts: 
     Complainant Irish Sagud and accused Rustan Ang were sweethearts. However, Irish broke up with him when she learned he had taken a live-in partner whom he had gotten pregnant. Rustan convinced her to elope with him for he did not love the woman whom he was about to marry, but Irish rejected the proposal. She changed her cellphone number but Rustan managed to get hold of it and send her text messages.

    Irish received through multimedia message a picture of a naked woman with spread legs and with her face superimposed on the figure. The sender’s cellphone number, stated in the message, was one of the numbers used by Rustan. After she got the obscene picture, she received text messages from Rustan threatening her that he will spread the picture he sent through the Internet.

   Under police supervision, Irish contacted Rustan through the cellphone number he used in sending the picture and text message. She asked him to meet her at a resort and he did. Upon parking his motorcycle and walking towards Irish, the police intercepted and arrested him. The police seized his cellphone and several SIM cards.

Issue:
    Whether or not the RTC properly admitted in evidence the obscene picture presented in the case.


Held:

   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 of Electronic Evidence.

   The objection is too late since he should have objected to the admission of the pictures on such ground at the time it was offered in evidence. He should be deemed to have 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.

Petition denied.