Fred, D. v. Riquelmy, L.

• Court: Superior Court of Pennsylvania
• Decided: May 26, 2026
• Docket: 1866 EDA 2025
• Status: Unpublished
• Author: Bowes

Opinion

J-A03001-26

NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT O.P. 65.37

DAMARIS FRED : IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF : PENNSYLVANIA : v. : : : LUIS RIQUELMY : : Appellant : No. 1866 EDA 2025

Appeal from the Order Entered June 23, 2025 In the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County Domestic Relations at No(s): 2501V7253

BEFORE: BOWES, J., McLAUGHLIN, J., and FORD ELLIOTT, P.J.E. *

MEMORANDUM BY BOWES, J.: FILED MAY 26, 2026

Luis Riquelmy appeals pro se from the order granting the protection

from abuse (“PFA”) petition filed by Damaris Fred. We affirm.

Given our disposition, we need not recount the history of this case in

detail. Briefly, Ms. Fred and Mr. Riquelmy began a relationship in 2020, and

share a child, born in 2021. Ms. Fred also has two children from a prior

relationship. The couple began to reside together when Ms. Fred became

pregnant with their daughter, but separated when she was eight months old.

They continued to live together until Ms. Fred moved out in June 2022.

Notably, when they were still residing together in March 2022, Mr. Riquelmy

____________________________________________

* Retired Senior Judge assigned to the Superior Court. J-A03001-26

threw a clothing iron at Ms. Fred, which caused severe bruising on the back

of her leg. He was also aggressive and swore at Ms. Fred during this incident.

A few years later, on January 3, 2025, Ms. Fred’s other two children

became frightened upon observing Mr. Riquelmy outside their home. Mr.

Riquelmy refused to leave, so Ms. Fred drove to the police station to file a

report. He followed her the whole way. Later that month, Mr. Riquelmy texted

Ms. Fred that he was outside her house and wanted to discuss daycare

payments. When she refused, he vowed that he would not leave until she

came outside, stating that she would have to exit her home eventually. Ms.

Fred subsequently filed the instant PFA petition, and the court issued a

temporary order on January 24, 2025, prohibiting Mr. Riquelmy from

contacting Ms. Fred. However, Mr. Riquelmy continued to harass her through

text messages and emails.

The trial court held a hearing on June 23, 2025. Both parties were self-

represented and provided testimony. At the conclusion, the court issued a

one-year final PFA order. Mr. Riquelmy’s timely appeal followed, and he and

the trial court complied with the obligations of Pa.R.A.P. 1925. Although his

brief fails to adhere to Pa.R.A.P. 2111(a)(4), lacking a statement of the

questions involved, we discern that Mr. Riquelmy challenges the court’s

reliance on the text messages, emails, and photographs that Ms. Fred

-2- J-A03001-26

introduced at the hearing, as he claims they were not properly authenticated. 1

See generally Mr. Riquelmy’s brief.2

In a PFA appeal, “this Court reviews the trial court’s legal conclusions

for an error of law or an abuse of discretion.” Moyer v. Shaffer, 305 A.3d

1064, 1067 (Pa.Super. 2023) (citation omitted). We have explained that “the

purpose of the PFA Act is to protect victims of domestic violence from those

who perpetuate such abuse, with the primary goal of advance prevention of

physical and sexual abuse.” Bhatia v. Fernandez, 319 A.3d 517, 520

(Pa.Super. 2024) (cleaned up). A petitioner need not establish that abuse

occurred beyond a reasonable doubt, but only by a preponderance of the

evidence. See E.K. v. J.R.A., 237 A.3d 509, 519 (Pa.Super. 2020).

As for authenticating or identifying evidence, our Rules of Evidence

provide that “[u]nless stipulated, to satisfy the requirement of authenticating

or identifying an item of evidence, the proponent must produce evidence

sufficient to support a finding that the item is what the proponent claims it is.”

Pa.R.E. 901(a). For example, testimony from a witness with knowledge “that

an item is what it is claimed to be” is satisfactory. Pa.R.E. 901(b)(1). Relative

1 To the extent Mr. Riquelmy challenges the sufficiency of the evidence to support a finding of abuse in accordance with the PFA Act, he has waived that argument for the failure to include it in his Rule 1925(b) statement. See Pa.R.A.P. 1925(b)(4)(vii) (“Issues not included in the Statement and/or not raised in accordance with the provisions of this paragraph (b)(4) are waived.”).

2 Ms. Fred did not file a brief.

-3- J-A03001-26

to digital evidence, including text messages, emails, and photographs, the

rule provides the following examples of evidence sufficient to satisfy its

requirements:

(11) Digital Evidence. To connect digital evidence with a person or entity:

(A) direct evidence such as testimony of a person with personal knowledge; or

(B) circumstantial evidence such as:

(i) identifying content; or

(ii) proof of ownership, possession, control, or access to a device or account at the relevant time when corroborated by circumstances indicating authorship.

Pa.R.E. 901.

Upon review of the applicable law, Mr. Riquelmy’s brief, and the certified

record, we affirm the court’s order on the basis of the well-reasoned opinion

that the Honorable Viktoria Kristiansson entered on September 5, 2025. With

respect to the digital evidence that Ms. Fred provided at the hearing, the court

explained that Ms. Fred’s testimony, as a person with knowledge, satisfied the

authentication requirements of Rule 901. See Trial Court Opinion, 9/5/25, at

9-13. The court addressed each exhibit Mr. Riquelmy challenged and provided

citations to the notes of testimony where Ms. Fred authenticated them. Id.

at 10-11. It further explained that Ms. Fred supplied adequate context to

establish that Mr. Riquelmy was the author of the texts and emails, where the

-4- J-A03001-26

content of the messages contained details about the PFA petition and their

daughter. Id. at 10-12.

Accordingly, we conclude that the trial court did not abuse its discretion

or commit an error of law in granting a final PFA order, and affirm the order

on the basis of its September 5, 2025 opinion, which the parties shall attach

hereto in the event of further proceedings.

Order affirmed.

Date: 5/26/2026

-5-