THIRD DIVISION
G.R. No. 211962, July 06, 2020
JOSE ROMEO C. ESCANDOR, PETITIONER, V. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, RESPONDENT.
R E S O L U T I O N
LEONEN, J.:
At the core of sexual harassment in the workplace, as penalized by Republic Act No. 7877, otherwise known as the Anti-Sexual Harassment Act of 1995, is abuse of power by a superior over a subordinate.1 Sexual harassment engenders three-fold liability: criminal, to address the wrong committed against society itself; civil, to address the private wrong against the offended party; and administrative, to protect the public service.2 Courts and administrative bodies should not hesitate to penalize insidious acts of sexual harassment, especially when committed by high-ranking public officers.
This resolves a Petition for Review on Certiorari under Rule 45 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure filed by petitioner Jose Romeo C. Escandor (Escandor). He prays for the reversal of the assailed October 17, 2013 Decision3 and February 28, 2014 Resolution4 of the Special Third Division of the Sandiganbayan. The assailed Decision found Escandor guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the offense of sexual harassment as penalized by the Anti-Sexual Harassment Act. The assailed Resolution, denied Escandor's Motion for Reconsideration.
Escandor was the Regional Director of the National Economic and Development Authority Region 7, Cebu City from August 16, 1992 to October 31, 2005. Private complainant Cindy Sheila C. Gamallo (Gamallo) was a contractual employee of the National Economic and Development Authority Region 7 for the United Nations Children's Fund assisted Fifth Country Program for Children from March 1995 to December 2003.5
In an Information6 dated March 21, 2007, Escandor was charged with violating Republic Act No. 7877 as follows: ChanRoblesVirtualawlibrary
That in (sic) or about the period from the month of July 1999 until November 2003, at Cebu City, Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, above- named accused JOSE ROMEO C. ESCANDOR, a public officer, being the Regional Director of NEDA Regional Office No. 7, based in Sudlon, Lahug, Cebu City (SG-28), in such capacity and committing the offense in relation to his official functions and taking advantage of his position, and with grave abuse of authority, with deliberate intent, with evident bad faith, did then and there willfully, unlawfully and criminally perform or make a series of unwelcome sexual advances or verbal or physical behaviour of sexual nature, and demand, solicit, and request sexual favors from Mrs. Cindy Sheila Cobarde- Gamallo, then a Contractual Employee of the NEDA Regional Office No. 7 for the UNICEF-assisted Fifth Country Program for Children (CPC V), and, thus, the accused's subordinate, thereby exercising authority, influence or moral ascendancy over said Mrs. Cindy Sheila Cobarde-Gamallo in her working place, namely by: telling her that he has fallen in love with her and has been attracted to her for a long time already, maliciously grabbing her hands, embracing her and planting a kiss on her forehead; telling her that if it were possible, he would have prevented her marriage with her husband; asking her for a date; groping her thigh; sending her winpop messages showing his amorous concern for her; on the office Christmas party of 2002, by grabbing her on a stairway and kissing her on the lips; giving her gifts of chocolates, wine and a bracelet on that same Christmas, and consistently throughout this time, sending her text messages suggestive of sex; which acts of the accused resulted to an intimidating, hostile, or offensive environment as these caused discomfort and humiliation on his subordinate, Ms. Cindy Sheila Cobarde-Gamallo, adversely affecting her and her family, thus constituting sexual harassment.7 (Emphasis supplied)In her Complaint-Affidavit,8 Gamallo averred that the first incident of sexual harassment happened one afternoon in July 1999, when Escandor called her in his office.9 There, Escandor apologized for his temper the previous day when he got angry at Gamallo for the delay in the payment of her salary. Escandor, who was standing near his computer, then asked Gamallo to approach him. When she did, he "grabbed her hand, embraced her, and kissed her on the forehead."10
9. One day sometime in 2000 RD Escandor called me to his office. . . . Then he said that I deserved to be happy, that I am beautiful and smart and that many men admired me. . . . To my great horror, he told me he had been attracted to me for a long time and if it was only possible, he would have prevented me from marrying Mark. ... He said he liked the way I walked . . . He declared I was the kind of woman he wanted. . .After these incidents, Gamallo told her colleague, Lina Villamor, about what Escandor did to her.12]
10. In the afternoon of the same day, ... he gently said he loved me and he could no longer hold back his attraction to me. . . . Suddenly, I felt his hand on my thigh.11cralawlawlibrary
Escandor's testimony identifies several people who were allegedly present during the incidents recounted by Gamallo - Mrs. Escandor, his secretary, the other staff, the security guard, and so on. However, with the exception of Mrs. Escandor whose testimony was excluded, it is unfortunate for the accused that only Savellon could corroborate part of his defense that the NEDA employees allegedly schemed to oust Escandor from office. It is unbelievable, to say the least, that Escandor, a person of high rank at the NEDA, could not find other witnesses to refute Gamallo's claims, while the complainant was able to gather witnesses who testified on her behalf.45cralawlawlibraryThe Sandiganbayan disposed of the case in the following manner: ChanRoblesVirtualawlibrary
WHEREFORE, in view of the foregoing, the accused Jose Romeo C. Escandor is found GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt and is sentenced to imprisonment for six (6) months and to pay a fine of Twenty Thousand Pesos (P20,000.00), with subsidiary imprisonment in case of insolvency.46cralawlawlibraryEscandor filed a Motion for Reconsideration,47 where he stated that the Sandiganbayan erred in ignoring undisputed evidence and established facts on record showing the belated filing of the Complaint. He averred that the Decision "contravened the exacting test in assessing the credibility of a sexual harassment complaint."48 He also stated that the Sandiganbayan erroneously disregarded the doctrinally settled rule in evaluating major self-contradictions and irreconcilable inconsistencies.49 His motion was denied by the Sandiganbayan in its February 28, 2014 Resolution.50
SECTION 3. Work, Education or Training -Related, Sexual Harassment Defined. — Work, education or training-related sexual harassment is committed by an employer, employee, manager, supervisor, agent of the employer, teacher, instructor, pi-ofessor, coach, trainor, or any other person who, having authority, influence or moral ascendancy over another in a work or training or education environment, demands, requests or otherwise requires any sexual favor from the other, regardless of whether the demand, request or requirement for submission is accepted by the object of said Act.Sexual harassment, as initially conceived, was the product of a consciousness that emerged among women, and propelled various feminist movements. Its subsequent recognition in law is an offshoot of those campaigns.
(a) In a work related or employment environment, sexual harassment is committed when: ChanRoblesVirtualawlibrary(1) The sexual favor is made as a condition in the hiring or in the employment, re-employment or continued employment of said individual, or in granting said individual favorable compensation, terms, conditions, promotions, or privileges; or the refusal to grant the sexual favor results in limiting, segregating or classifying the employee which in any way would discriminate, deprive or diminish employment opportunities or otherwise adversely affect said employee;(2) The above acts would impair the employee's rights or privileges under existing labor laws; or(b) In an education or training environment, sexual harassment is committed: ChanRoblesVirtualawlibrary
(3) The above acts would result in an intimidating, hostile, or offensive environment for the employee.(1) Against one who is under the care, custody or supervision of the offender;Any person who directs or induces another to commit any act of sexual harassment as herein defined, or who cooperates in the commission thereof by another without which it would not have been committed, shall also be held liable under this Act.
(2) Against one whose education, training, apprenticeship or tutorship is entrusted to the offender;
(3) When the sexual favor is made a condition to the giving of a passing grade, or the granting of honors and scholarships, or the payment of a stipend, allowance or other benefits, privileges, or considerations; or
(4) When the sexual advances result in an intimidating, hostile or offensive environment for the student, trainee or apprentice.
Assuming arguendo that respondent never intended to violate [Republic Act No.] 7877, his attempt to kiss petitioner was a flagrant disregard of a customary rule that had existed since time immemorial — that intimate physical contact between individuals must be consensual. Respondent's defiance of custom and lack of respect for the opposite sex were more appalling because he was a married man. Respondent's act showed a low regard for women and disrespect for petitioner's honor and dignity.89 (Emphasis supplied)This is in contrast with crimes mala in se, which are so serious in their effects on society as to call for almost unanimous condemnation of its members. In crimes mala in se, the intent governs; but in mala prohibita, the only inquiiy is whether the law has been violated.90
In the community of nations, there was a time when discrimination was institutionalized through the legalization of now prohibited practices. Indeed, even within this century, persons were discriminated against merely because of gender, creed or the color of their skin, to the extent that the validity of human beings being treated as mere chattel was judicially upheld in other jurisdictions. But in humanity's march towards a more refined sense of civilization, the law has stepped in and seen it fit to condemn this type of conduct for, at bottom, history reveals that the moving force of civilization has been to realize and secure a more humane existence. Ultimately, this is what humanity as a whole seeks to attain as we strive for a better quality of life or higher standard of living. Thus, in our nations very recent history, the people have spoken, through Congress, to deem conduct constitutive of sexual harassment or hazing, acts previously considered harmless by custom, as criminal.92Conviction under Republic Act No. 7877 subjects the offender to criminal penalties.93 Under Section 7, any person who violates the law shall, upon conviction, be penalized by imprisonment of not less than one (1) month nor more than six (6) months, or a fine of not less than P10,000.00 nor more than P20,000.00, or both such fine and imprisonment at the discretion of the court. Since in a criminal action, the State prosecutes the accused for an act or omission punishable by law,94 the action is commenced by filing the complaint with the regular courts or the office of prosecutor.95 The criminal action arising from violation of the provisions of Republic Act No. 7877 prescribes in three (3) years.96]
SECTION 6. Independent Action for Damages. Nothing in this Act shall preclude the victim of work, education, or training-related sexual harassment from instituting a separate and independent action for damages and other affirmative relief.Section 6 is consistent with Article 100 of the Revised Penal Code, which states that, "Every man criminally liable is also civilly liable." The rationale for this was explained in Rodriguez v. Ponferrada:97
Underlying this legal principle is the traditional theory that when a person commits a crime he offends two entities namely (1) the society in which he lives in or the political entity called the State whose law he had violated; and (2) the individual member of that society whose person, right, honor, chastity or property was actually or directly injured or damaged by the same punishable act or omission.98 (Emphasis supplied)Civil liability arises from the damage or injury caused by the felonious act.99 Thus, in a civil action, the real party plaintiff is the offended party, while in a criminal action, the plaintiff is the "People of the Philippines." Furthermore, the quantum of evidence required in a civil action is mere "preponderance of evidence," in contrast to "proof beyond reasonable doubt" which is required for conviction in a criminal action.100
SECTION 3. For the purpose of these Rules, the administrative offense of sexual harassment is an act, or a series of acts, involving any unwelcome sexual advance, request or demand for a sexual favor, or other verbal or physical behavior of a sexual nature, committed by a government employee or official in a work-related, training or education related environment of the person complained of.CSC Resolution No. 01-0940, Section 4 further gives examples on where and how sexual harassment may take place:
(a) Work-related sexual harassment is committed under the following circumstances: ChanRoblesVirtualawlibrary(1) submission to or rejection of the act or series of acts is used as a basis for any employment decision (including, but not limited to, matters related to hiring, promotion, raise in salary, job security, benefits and any other personnel action) affecting Jc the applicant/employee; or
(2) the act or series of acts have the purpose or effect of interfering with the complainant's work performance, or creating an intimidating, hostile or offensive work environment; or(3) the act or series of acts might reasonably be expected to cause discrimination, insecurity, discomfort, offense or humiliation to a complainant who may be a co-employee, applicant, customer, or ward of the person complained of.(b) Education or training-related sexual harassment is committed against one who is under the actual or constructive care, custody or supervision of the offender, or against one whose education, training, apprenticeship, internship or tutorship is directly or constructively entrusted to, or is provided by, the offender, when: ChanRoblesVirtualawlibrary(1) submission to or rejection of the act or series of acts as a basis for any decision affecting the complainant, including, but not limited to, the giving of a grade, the granting of honors or a scholarship, the payment of a stipend or allowance, or the giving of any benefit, privilege or consideration.
(2) the act or series of acts have the purpose or effect of interfering with the performance, or creating an intimidating, hostile or offensive academic environment of the complainant; or
(3) the act or series of acts might reasonably expected to cause discrimination, insecurity, discomfort, offense or humiliation to a complainant who may be a trainee, apprentice, intern, tutee or ward of the person complained of.
a) PhysicalCasual gestures of friendship and camaraderie, done during festive or special occasions and with other people present, do not constitute sexual harassment.109 Accordingly, in Aquino v. Acosta,110 the Court agreed with the report of the investigating Justice that the complainant failed to show by convincing evidence that the acts of Judge Acosta in greeting her with a kiss on the cheek, in a 'beso-beso' fashion, were carried out with lustful and lascivious desires or were motivated by malice or ill motive. The Court explained: ChanRoblesVirtualawlibraryi. Malicious Touching;b) Verbal, such as but not limited to, requests or demands for sexual favors, and lurid remarks;
ii. Overt sexual advances;
iii. Gestures with lewd insinuation.
c) Use of objects, pictures or graphics, letters or writing notes with sexual underpinnings;
d) Other forms analogous to the foregoing.
In all the incidents complained of, the respondent's pecks on the cheeks of the complainant should be understood in the context of having been done on the occasion of some festivities, and not the assertion of the latter that she was singled out by Judge Acosta in his kissing escapades. The busses on her cheeks were simply friendly and innocent, bereft of malice and lewd design.111cralawlawlibraryUnlike in a criminal action where the penalty is a fine, imprisonment, or both, the penalty in an administrative action is, at most, dismissal, from the service.112 This is because an administrative action seeks to protect the public service by imposing administrative sanctions to the erring public officer.113 As has been explained: ChanRoblesVirtualawlibrary
Public service requires the utmost integrity and strictest discipline; thus, a public servant must exhibit at all times the highest sense of honesty and integrity, and utmost devotion and dedication to duty, respect the rights of others and shall refrain from doing acts contrary to law, and good.114cralawlawlibrary
In the present case, there is nothing in the records that would indicate that Gamallo is dishonest or untruthful. She was able to give her testimony in Court and answer the questions put to her on cross-examination. Her former supervisor, Tagalog, attests that he had never heard of any act of immorality committed by Gamallo.143The Sandiganbayan, being the court which conducted trial, "is in the best position to determine the truthfulness of witnesses."144 Indeed, this court must "give the highest respect to [its] of the testimony of the witnesses, considering its unique position in directly observing the demeanor of a witness on the stand."145
The factual findings of the [trial court], its calibration of the testimonies of the witnesses, and its assessment of their probative weight are given high respect, if not conclusive effect, unless cogent facts and circumstances of substance, which if considered, would alter the outcome of the case, were ignored, misconstrued or misinterpreted.147When the victim's testimony is straightforward, convincing, consistent with human nature, and unflawed by any material or significant controversy, it passes the test of credibility and the accused may be convicted solely on the basis thereof. 148
. . .telling her that he has fallen in love with her and has been attracted to her for a long time already, maliciously grabbing her hands, embracing her and planting a kiss on her forehead; telling her that if it were possible, he would have prevented her marriage with her husband; asking her for a date; groping her thigh; sending her winpop messages showing his amorous concern for her; on the office Christmas party of 2002, by grabbing her on a stairway and kissing her on the lips; giving her gifts of chocolates, wine and a bracelet on that same Christmas, and consistently throughout this time, sending her text messages suggestive ofsex[.]150cralawlawlibraryThe recital lists several distinct acts (or sets of acts) of sexual harassment; the incident in the "Christmas party of 2002" being just one. That each act was distinct is manifested in how they were recited in the information: separated by a semicolon for each act, or set of acts, making them distinct items in a list.151 Each of these acts or sets of acts, if proven, is sufficient to convict Escandor. Thus, even if the Court does not appreciate the allegations relating to events that transpired during the Christmas party— whether it was in 2002, as alleged in the Information, or in 2000, as testified to by Gamallo—this does not absolve Escandor of liability.
Private respondent admittedly allowed four (4) years to pass before finally coming out with her employer's sexual impositions. Not many women, especially in this country, are made of the stuff that can endure the agony and trauma of a public, even corporate, scandal. If petitioner corporation had not issued the third memorandum that terminated the services of private respondent, we could only speculate how much longer she would keep her silence. Moreover, few persons are privileged indeed to transfer from one employer to another. The dearth of quality employment has become a daily "monster" roaming the streets that one may not be expected to give up one's employment easily but to hang on to it, so to speak, by all tolerable means. Perhaps, to private respondent's mind, for as long as she could outwit her employer's ploys she would continue on her job and consider them as mere occupational hazards. This uneasiness in her place of work thrived in an atmosphere of tolerance for four (4) years, and one could only imagine the prevailing anxiety and resentment, if not bitterness, that beset her all that time. But William Chua faced reality soon enough. Since he had no place in private respondent's heart, so must she have no place in his office. So, he provoked her, harassed her, and finally dislodged her; and for finally venting her pent-up anger for years, he "found" the perfect reason to terminate her.163cralawlawlibraryAs aptly observed by the Sandiganbayan, Escandor is mistaken in his interpretation of Digitel.164 Digitel stemmed from a Complaint for constructive dismissal due to professional and sexual harassment. In that case, this Court stated that "there is, strictly speaking, no fixed period within which an alleged victim of sexual harassment may file a complaint, [although] it does not mean that he or she is at liberty to file one anytime she or he wants to. Surely, any delay in filing a complaint must be justifiable or reasonable as not not to cast doubt on its merits."165
ATTY. MARONILLA:The memorandum sought to "uphold the image of NEDA as a government institution that has resisted undue political pressures."167 Such image, according to the "[National Economic and Development Authority] Region 7 Staff," will be tainted "should transfers or reshuffle of regional directors be made because of political pressure."168 The mere happenstance of Gamallo's participation in an effort to protect the National Economic and Development Authority as an institution is not itself a disavowal of and, in no way, precludes Escandor's harassment of Gamallo.
Q: Around the same date, Madam Witness, September 2000, do you not recall having signed a memorandum in support of the accused against the effort of then Senator Osmena to remove him from NEDA Legislative?PROS. RAFAEL:
The question, Your Honor, has no basis.
JUSTICE DE LA CRUZ:
Answer.
WITNESS:A: I signed that document.
ATTY. MARONILLA:
Q: Madam Witness, the question is, do you recall?
A: Yes Sir.
Q: Can you recall the tenor of that document?
A: It was depending (sic) NEDA as an institution. It did not depend (sic) the integrity of Director Escandor as a person. It was on the NEDA extreme political pressure, and also Director Escandor was not guilty of the wrongdoing that the Senator was accusing him of. We were really depending (sic) the integrity of NEDA, not the integrity of Director Escandor.166cralawlawlibrary
Endnotes:
*Designated additional Member per Raffle dated July 1, 2020.
1 In Flai-alde v. Court of Appeals, 392 Phil. 146, 150 (2000) [Per J. Pardo, En Banc]:
Sexual harassment in ihe workplace is not about a man taking advantage of a woman by reason of sexual desire; it is about power being exercised by a superior officer over his women subordinates. The power emanates from the fact that the superior can remove the subordinate from his workplace if the latter would refuse his amorous advances. (Emphasis supplied)
2 In Domingo v. Rayala, 569 Phil. 423, 447 (2008) [Per J. Nachura, Third Division]:
Basic in the law of public officers is the three-fold liability rule, which states that the wrongful acts or omissions of a public officer may give rise to civil, criminal and administrative liability. An action for each can proceed independently of the others. This rule applies with full force to sexual harassment.
(Emphasis supplied)
3Rollo, at pp. 59-94.
4 Id at 96-100.
5 Id at 61.
6 Id at 103-107.
7 Id. at 103-105.
8 Id at 267-279.
9 Id at 268.
10 Id.
11 Id at 268-269.
12 Id at 269.
13 Id at 270.
14 Id at 271.
15 Id at 271.
16 Id
17 Id
18 Id at 273
19 Id at 272.
20 Id at 274.
21 Id at 278.
22 Id at 405, Comment.
23 Id at 406.
24 Id at 406.
25 Id at 406-407.
26 Id.
27 Id.
28 Id at 407.
29 Id.
30 Id.
31 Id at 407.
32 Id. at 281-324, Counter Affidavit
33 Id at 282.
34 Id. at 300.
35 Id.
36 Id. at 282.
37 Id.
38 Id at 81.
39 Id at 81.
40 Id at 110.
41 Id at 118.
42 Id at 59-94. The October 17, 2013 Decision in SB-07-CRM-0043 was penned by Associate Justice Alex L. Quiroz and concurred in by Associate Justices Jose R. Hernandez and Samuel R. Martires of the Special Third Division of the Sandiganbayan.
43 Id at 90.
44 Id at 91.
45 Id at 93.
46 Id at 93.
47 Id at 131-187.
48 Id at 132.
49 Id at 133.
50 Id at 96-100. The February 28, 2014 Resolution was penned by Associate Justice Alex L. Quiroz and concurred in by Associate Justices Amparo M. Cabotaje-Tang and Samuel R. Martires of the Third Division of the Sandiganbayan.
51 Id at 29.
52 Id at 28.
53 Id at 33.
54 Id at 29.
55 Section 2, Republic Act No. 7877.
56 REVA B. SlEGEL, A Short History of Sexual Harassment, in DIRECTIONS IN SEXUAL HARASSMENT LAW 3(2004).
57 Id. The article cited the following authors:
Thus, by the close of the nineteenth century, we find Helen Campbell's 1887 report on Women Wage-Workers invoking the common understanding that "[h]ousehold service has become synonymous with the worst degradation that comes to woman." Campbell also described in some detail the forms of sexual extortion practiced upon women who worked in factories and in the garment industry. Along similar lines, Upton Sinclair's 1905 expose, The Jungle dramatized the predicament of women in the meat-packing industry by comparing the forms of sexual coercion practiced in "wage slavery" and chattel slavery[.]
58 MARILYN WOOD HILL, THEIR SISTERS' KEEPERS: PROSTITUTION IN NEW YORK CITY 140-141 (1993).
59 REVA B. SlEGEL, A Short History of Sexual Harassment, in DIRECTIONS IN SEXUAL HARASSMENT LAW
6 (2004).
60 Id.
61 Id. at 7.
62 Id. at 8.
63 Id.
64 Id. at 9 citing LlN FARLEY, SEXUAL SHAKEDOWN: THE SEXUAL HARASSMENT OF WOMEN ON THE JOB
(1978).
65 Id.
66 Carrie N. Baker, The Emergence of Organized Feminist Resistance to Sexual Harassment in the United
States in the 1970s, 19 J. WOMEN'S HISTORY 161, 164 (2007).
67 STACY L. MALLICOAT, Women and Victimization: Stalking and Sexual Harassment in WOMEN AND
CRIME: A TEXT/READER 199 (2011).
68 REVA B. SlEGEL, A Short History of Sexual Harassment, in DIRECTIONS IN SEXUAL HARASSMENT LAW 10(2004).
69 Philippine Telegraph and Telephone Co. v. National Labor Relations Commission, 338 Phil. 1093,
1110 (1997) [Per J. Regalado, Second Division]
70 Scalia, Eugene, The Strange Career of Quid Pro Quo Sexual Harassment, 21 HARV. J. L. & PUB. POL'Y 307,308(1998).
71 Id. citing Bryson v Chicago State University 96 F.3d 912, 915 (7lh Cir. 1996)
72 Harris vs Forklift Systems, Inc, 510 US 17, 21(1993)
73 Republic Act No. 7877 (1995), sec. 3(a)(l) provides:
(1) The sexual favor is made as a condition in the hiring or in the employment, re-employment or continued employment of said individual, or in granting said individual favorable compensation, terms, conditions, promotions, or privileges; or the refusal to grant the sexual favor results in limiting, segregating or classifying the employee which in any way would discriminate, deprive or diminish employment opportunities or otherwise adversely affect said employee;
74 Republic Act No. 7877 (1995), sec. 3(a)(3) provides:
(3) The above acts would result in an intimidating, hostile, or offensive environment for the employee.
75 By its own title, Republic Act No.,7877 is, "An Act Declaring Sexual Harassment Unlawful in the
Employment, Education or Training Environment, and for Other Purposes." Furthermore, Section 2
states that "The State shall value the dignity of every individual, enhance the development of its human
resources, guarantee full respect for human rights, and uphold the dignity of workers, employees,
applicants for employment, students or those undergoing training, instruction or education."
76 REV. PEN. CODE, art. 335 states:
ARTICLE 335. When and how rape is committed. — Rape is committed by having carnal knowledge
of a woman under any of the following circumstances:
1. By using force or intimidation;
2. When the woman is deprived of reason or otherwise unconscious; and
3. When the woman is under twelve years of age, even though neither of the circumstances
mentioned in the two next preceding paragraphs shall be present.
The crime of rape shall be punished by reclusion perpetua.
Whenever the crime of rape is committed with the use of a deadly weapon or by two or more persons,
the penalty shall be reclusion perpetua to death.
When by reason or on the occasion of the rape, the victim has become insane, the penalty shall be
death.
When rape is attempted or frustrated and a homicide is committed by reason or on the occasion
thereof, the penalty shall be likewise death.
When by reason or on the occasion of the rape, a homicide is committed, the penalty shall be death.
77Olivarez v. Court of Appeals, 503 Phil. 421, 442^143 (2005) [Per J. Ynares Santiago,First Division].
The essential elements of acts of lasciviousness under the Revised Penal Code, art. 336 in relation to
art. 335 are as follows:
1 .That the offender commits any act of lasciviousness or lewdness;
2.That the act of lasciviousness is committed against a person of either sex;
3.That it is done under any of the following circumstances:
a. By using force or intimidation; or
b. When the offended party is deprived of reason or otherwise unconscious; or
c. By means of fraudulent machination or grave abuse of authority; or
d. When the offended party is under 12 years of age or is demented.
78 Gonzales v. Court of Appeals, 302 Phil. 706, 712 (1994) [Per J. Vitug, Third Division].
The elements of qualified seduction are:
(1) that the offended party is a virgin, which is presumed if she is unmarried and of good reputation;
(2) that she must be over twelve (12) and under eighteen (18) years of age;
(3) that the offender has sexual intercourse with her; and
(4) that there is abuse of authority, confidence or relationship on the part of the offender.
79 Boleros, Jr. v. People, 518 Phi. 175, 195 (2006) [Per J. Garcia, Second Division] citing III AQUINO,
REVISED PENAL CODE 81 (1997).
Unjust vexation is "any human conduct which, although not productive of some physical or material harm, would unjustly annoy or irritate [or] distress or disturb[]...the mind of the person to whom it is directed."
80 Domingo v. Rayah, 569 Phil. 423, 447 (2008) [Per J. Nachura, Third Division].
81 Id.
82Rodriguez v. Ponferrada, 503 Phil. 306, 3 14 (2005) [Per J. Panganiban,Third Division],
83 Tucson v. Sandiganbayan, 376 Phil. 191, 198-199 (1999) [Per J. Quisimbing.Second Division]
84 Office of the President v. Cataquiz, 673 Phil. 318, 344-345 (2011) [Per J. Mendoza, Third Division]
85 Aquino v. Acosta, 429 Phil. 498, 509 (2002) [Per J. Sandoval-Gutierrez, En Bane].
86 Republic Act No 7877 (1995), sec. 3.
87 The Court has long upheld the general rule that "acts punished under a special law are malum
prohibitum." (ABS-CBN Corp. v. Gozon, 755 Phil. 709, 763 (2015) [Per J. Leonen, Second Division]
citing Ho Wai Pang v. People, 675 Phil. 692 (2011) [Per J. Del Castillo, First Division]; and People v.
Chua, 695 Phil. 16 (2012) [Per J. Villarama, First Division.]) Also, for "[a]n act which is declared
malum prohibitum, malice or criminal intent is completely immaterial." (ABS-CBN Corp. v. Gozon,
755 Phil. 709, 763 (2015) [Per J. Leonen, Second Division] citing Go v. The Fifth Division of
Sancliganbayan, 558 Phil. 736, 744 (2007) [Per J. Ynares-Santiago, Third Division].)
88Narvasa v. Sanchez, Jr., 630 Phil. 577 (2010) [Per Curiam, En Bane].
89 Id. at 582.
90Tan v. Ballena, 579 Phil. 503, 527-528 (2008) [Per J. Chico-Nazario, Third Division]
91 Vedaña v. Valencia, 356 Phil. 317 (1998) [Per J. Davide Jr., First Division]
92 Id. at 332.
93 Republic Act No. 7877 (1995), sec. 7.
94 RULES OF COURT, Rule 1, sec. 3.
95 RULES OF COURT, Rule 110, sec. 1.
96 Republic Act No. 7877 (1995), sec. 7.
97Rodriguez v. Ponferrada, 503 Phil. 306 (2005) [Per J. Panganiban.Third Division]
98 Id. at 314.
99 Id. at 315.
100 "While the guilt of the accused in a criminal prosecution must be established beyond reasonable doubt,
only a preponderance of evidence is required in a civil action for damages." (People v. Ligon y Trias, 236 Phil. 450,460 (1987) [Per J. Yap, En Banc] citing CIVIL CODE, art. 29.)
101Vedana v. Valencia, 356 Phil. 317 (1998) [Per J. Davide Jr., First Division]
102 London v. Bagnio Country Club Corp., 439 Phil. 487 (2002) [Per J. Vitug, First Division]
103 Republic Act No. 7877(1995), sec. 5.
104 Republic Act No. 7877 (1995), sec. 5.
105 Republic Act No. 7877 (1995), sec. 4.
106 CSC Resolution No. 01 -0940, sec. 2 provides:
SECTION 2. These Rules shall apply to all officials and employees in government, whether in the Career or Non-Career service and holding any level of position, including Presidential appointees and elective officials regardless of status, in the national or local government, state colleges and universities, including government-owned or controlled coiporations, with original charters.
107 CSC Resolution No. 01-0940(2001), sec. 7.
108 Republic Act No. 7877 (1995), sec. 7.
109See Aquino vs Judge Acosta, 429 Phil. 498 (2002).
110 Aquino vs Judge Acosta, 429 Phil. 498 (2002).
111 Id. at 506.
112 On one hand, Republic Act No. 7877 (1995), sec. 7 provides for the criminal penalties:
SECTION 7. Penalties. —Any person who violates the provisions of this Act shall, upon conviction, be penalized by imprisonment of not less than one (1) month nor more than six (6) months, or a fine of not less than Ten thousand pesos (P 10,000) nor more than Twenty thousand pesos (P20,000), or both such fine and imprisonment at the discretion of the court.
On the other hand, 2017 RULES ON ADMINISTRATIVE CASES IN THE CIVIL SERVICE, sec. 51(A) concerns administrative liability by a public officer or employee for sexual harassment. Depending on precise
nature of the acts committed and other attendant circumstances, an act of sexual harassment may be
deemed a grave, less grave, or light offense.
113 Office of the President v. Cataquiz, 673 Phil. 318, 345 (2011) [Per J. Mendoza, Third Division].
114 Office of the President, Administrative Order No. 119, May 8, 2000, as quoted in Domingo v. Rayala, 569 Phil. 423, 436 (2008) [Per J. Nachura, Third Division].
115 Rep. Act. No. 11313(2019), sec. 2.
116 Rollo, at p. 68.
117 Id at 61.
118Domingo v. Rayala, 569 Phil. 423 (2008) [Per J. Nachura, Third Division].
119 Id. at 450.
120 Id.
121Rollo, p. 268.
122 Id.
123 Id.
124 Id. at 272.
125 Id.
126 Id.
127 Id.
128Floralde v. Court of Appeals, 392 Phil. 146, 150 (2000) [Per J. Pardo, En Banc].
129 Republic Act No 7877 (1995), sec. 3.
130Rollo, p. 268.
131 Id. at 269.
132 Id. at 271.
133 Id.
134 Id. at 268.
135 Id. at 269.
136 Id. at 272.
137 Id. at 270.
138 Id. at 45.
139 Id.
140 Id at 46.
141People v. Quintos, 746 Phil. 809, 819-820 (2014) [Per J. Leonen, Second Division].
142 Id. at 820.
143 Rollo, p. 91.
144People v. Sanchez, 681 Phil. 631, 635 (2012) [Per J. Reyes, Second Division] citing People v. Laog,,674 Phil. 444(2011) [Per J. Villarama, Jr., First Division].
145Id.
146 623 Phil. 246 (2009) [Per J. Bersamin, First Division].
147Id. at 256 citing Pelonia v. People, 549 Phil. 717 (2007) [Per J. Callejo, Sr., Third Division].
148People v. Quintos, 746 Phil. 809, 825-826 (2014) [Per J. Leonen, Second Division].
149Rollo, p. 30.
150 Id. at 104-105.
151See Agcaoili vs Suguitan, 48 Phil. 676 (1926) [Per J. Johnson, En Bane] where the court stated that a
semicolon, like a comma, indicates separation or division, but in a degree greater than that expressed
by comma.
152 Rollo, p. 33.
153People v. Razonabte, 386 Phil. 771, 780 (2000) [Per J. Puno, First Division].
154People v. Manalili, 355 Phil. 652, 689 (1998) [Per J. Panganiban, First Division].
155People v. Bugayong, 359 Phil. 870, 881-882 (1998) [Per J. Panganiban, First Division].
156Rollo, p. 36.
157 Id.
158 Id. at 37.
159 525 Phil. 765 (2006) [Per J. Carpio Morales, Third Division].
160 Id.
161Phil. Aeolus Auto-Molive United Corp. v. National Labor Relations Commission, 387 Phil. 250, 264 (2000) [Per J. Bellosillo, Second Division]
162 387 Phil. 250 (2000) [Per J. Bellosillo, Second Division].
163 Id. at 264-265.
164 525 Phil. 765 (2006) [Per J. Carpio Morales, Third Division]
165 Id. at 794.
166Rollo, pp. 91-92.
167 Id. at 381.
168 Id. at 381.chanRoblesvirtualLawlibrary