ELECTRONIC EVIDENCE RULE: THE RULES ON ELECTRONIC EVIDENCE APPLIES ONLY TO CIVIL ACTIONS, QUASI-JUDICIAL PROCEEDINGS, AND ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEEDINGS. IT DOES NOT APPLY TO CRIMINAL CASES. (RUSTAN ANG Y PASCUA VS. COURT OF APPEALS AND IRISH SAGUD)

In a charge for the crime of violence against women (RA 9262 VAWC) by Irish against her former boyfriend Rustan, is the act of the latter in sending a picture of a naked woman, not her, but with her face on it through text message covered by the Electronic Evidence Rule?

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). Thus:

RULE 5 

AUTHENTICATION OF ELECTRONIC DOCUMENTS 

   
            SECTION 1. Burden of proving authenticity. – The person seeking to introduce an electronic document in any legal proceeding has the burden of proving its authenticity in the manner provided in this Rule. 

           

            SEC. 2. Manner of authentication. – Before any private electronic document offered as authentic is received in evidence, its authenticity must be proved by any of the following means: 

            (a) by evidence that it had been digitally signed by the person purported to have signed the same; 

            (b) by evidence that other appropriate security procedures or devices as may be authorized by the Supreme Court or by law for authentication of electronic documents were applied to the document; or 

            (c) by other evidence showing its integrity and reliability to the satisfaction of the judge. 

            SEC. 3. Proof of electronically notarized document. - A document electronically notarized in accordance with the rules promulgated by the Supreme Court shall be considered as a public document and proved as a notarial document under the Rules of Court (emphasis supplied). 

But, firstly, Rustan is raising this objection to the admissibility of the obscene picture, Exhibit A, for the first time before this 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 (People v. Mendoza, G.R. No. 180501, December 24, 2008, 575 SCRA 616, 625-626.).

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. (A.M. No. 01-7-01-SC, Rule 1, Section 2). Be that as it may, in conclusion, the Supreme Court found that the prosecution has proved each and every element of the crime charged beyond reasonable doubt (RUSTAN ANG y PASCUA vs. THE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS and IRISH SAGUD, G.R. No. 182835, April 20, 2010, ABAD, J.).