You are on page 1of 25

AGRARIAN LAW AND SOCIAL LEGISLATION

FULL CASES BATCH 1 JULY 2, 2015
MA. LOURDES DOMINGO VS ROGELIO RAYALA
GR NO 155831
On November 16, 1998, Ma. Lourdes T. Domingo (Domingo), then Stenographic Reporter
III at the NLRC, filed a Complaint for sexual harassment against Rayala before Secretary
Bienvenido Laguesma of the Department of Labor and Employment (DOLE).
To support the Complaint, Domingo executed an Affidavit narrating the
incidences of sexual harassment complained of, thus:
xxxx
4. Sa simula ay pabulong na sinasabihan lang ako ni Chairman Rayala
ng mga salitang Lot, gumaganda ka yata?
5. Sa ibang mga pagkakataon nilalapitan na ako ni Chairman at
hahawakan ang aking balikat sabay pisil sa mga ito habang
ako ay nagta-type at habang nagbibigay siya ng diktasyon. Sa
mga pagkakataong ito, kinakabahan ako. Natatakot na baka
mangyari sa akin ang mga napapabalitang insidente na
nangyari na noon tungkol sa mga sekretarya niyang nagbitiw
gawa ng mga mahahalay na panghihipo ni Chairman.
6. Noong ika-10 ng Setyembre, 1998, nang ako ay nasa 8 th Floor, may
nagsabi sa akin na kailangan akong bumaba sa 7 th Floor kung
nasaan ang aming opisina dahil sa may koreksyon daw na
gagawin sa mga papel na tinayp ko. Bumaba naman ako para
gawin ito. Habang ginagawa ko ito, lumabas si Chairman
Rayala sa silid ni Mr. Alex Lopez. Inutusan ako ni Chairman na
sumunod sa kaniyang silid. Nang nasa silid na kami, sinabi
niya sa akin:
Chairman: Lot, I like you a lot. Naiiba ka sa lahat.
At pagkatapos ako ay kaniyang inusisa tungkol sa mga personal na
bagay sa aking buhay. Ang ilan dito ay tungkol sa aking mga magulang,
kapatid, pag-aaral at kung may boyfriend na raw ba ako.
Chairman: May boyfriend ka na ba?
Lourdes: Dati nagkaroon po.
Chairman: Nasaan na siya?
Lourdes: Nag-asawa na ho.
Chairman: Bakit hindi kayo nagkatuluyan?
Lourdes: Nainip po.
Chairman: Pagkatapos mo ng kurso mo ay kumuha
ka ng Law at ako ang bahala sa iyo,
hanggang ako pa ang Chairman dito.
Pagkatapos ay kumuha siya ng pera sa kaniyang amerikana at inaabot
sa akin.
Chairman: Kuhanin mo ito.

Lourdes: Huwag na ho hindi ko kailangan.
Chairman: Hindi sige, kuhanin mo. Ayusin mo ang
dapat ayusin.
Tinanggap ko po ang pera ng may pag-aalinlangan. Natatakot at
kinakabahan na kapag hindi ko tinanggap ang pera ay baka siya
magagalit kasabay na rito ang pagtapon sa akin kung saan-saan
opisina o kaya ay tanggalin ako sa posisyon.
Chairman: Paglabas mo itago mo ang pera. Ayaw ko
ng may makaka-alam nito. Just the
two of us.
Lourdes: Bakit naman, Sir?
Chairman: Basta. Maraming tsismosa diyan sa
labas. But I dont give them a
damn. Hindi ako mamatay sa kanila.
Tumayo na ako at lumabas. Pumanhik na ako ng 8th Floor at pumunta
ako sa officemate ko na si Agnes Magdaet. Ikinwento ko ang nangyari
sa akin sa opisina ni Chairman. Habang kinikwento ko ito kay Agnes ay
binilang namin ang pera na nagkakahalaga ng tatlong libong piso (PHP
3,000). Sinabi ni Agnes na isauli ko raw ang pera, pero ang sabi ko ay
natatakot ako baka magalit si Sir. Nagsabi agad kami kay EC Perlita
Velasco at sinalaysay ko ang nangyari. Sinabi niya na isauli ko ang pera
at noong araw ding iyon ay nagpasiya akong isauli na nga ito ngunit
hindi ako nagkaroon ng pagkakataon dahil marami siyang naging
bisita. Isinauli ko nga ang pera noong Lunes, Setyembre 14, 1998.
7. Noong huling linggo ng Setyembre, 1998, ay may tinanong din sa
akin si Chairman Rayala na hindi ko masikmura, at sa aking palagay at
tahasang pambabastos sa akin.
Chairman: Lot, may ka live-in ka ba?
Lourdes: Sir, wala po.
Chairman: Bakit malaki ang balakang mo?
Lourdes: Kayo, Sir ha! Masama sa amin ang may ka
live-in.
Chairman: Bakit, ano ba ang relihiyon ninyo?
Lourdes: Catholic, Sir. Kailangan ikasal muna.
Chairman: Bakit ako, hindi kasal.
Lourdes: Sir, di magpakasal kayo.
Chairman: Huh. Ibahin na nga natin ang usapan.
8. Noong Oktubre 29, 1998, ako ay pumasok sa kwarto ni Chairman
Rayala. Ito ay sa kadahilanang ang fax machine ay nasa loob ng
kaniyang kwarto. Ang nag-aasikaso nito, si Riza Ocampo, ay nakaleave kaya ako ang nag-asikaso nito noong araw na iyon. Nang
mabigyan ko na ng fax tone yung kausap ko, pagharap ko sa kanan ay
nakaharang sa dadaanan ko si Chairman Rayala.Tinitingnan ako sa
mata at ang titig niya ay umuusad mula ulo hanggang dibdib tapos ay
ngumiti na may mahalay na pakahulugan.

AGRARIAN LAW AND SOCIAL LEGISLATION
FULL CASES BATCH 1 JULY 2, 2015
9. Noong hapon naman ng pareho pa ring petsa, may nag-aapply na
sekretarya sa opisina, sinabi ko ito kay Chairman Rayala:
Lourdes: Sir, si Pinky po yung applicant, magpapainterview po yata sa inyo.
Chairman: Sabihin mo magpa-pap smear muna siya
Chairman: O sige, i-refer mo kay Alex. (Alex Lopez,
Chief of Staff).
10. Noong Nobyembre 9, 1998, ako ay tinawag ni Chairman Rayala sa
kaniyang opisina upang kuhanin ko ang diktasyon niya para kay ELA
Oscar Uy. Hindi pa kami nakakatapos ng unang talata, may pumasok
na bisita si Chairman, si Baby Pangilinan na sinamahan ni Riza
Ocampo. Pinalabas muna ako ni Chairman. Nang maka-alis na si Ms.
Pangilinan, pinapasok na niya ako ulit. Umupo ako. Lumapit sa likuran
ko si Chairman, hinawakan ang kaliwang balikat ko na pinipisil ng
kanang kamay niya at sinabi:
Chairman: Saan na ba tayo natapos?
Palakad-lakad siya sa aking likuran habang nag-didikta. Huminto siya
pagkatapos, at nilagay niya ang kanang kamay niya sa aking kanang
balikat at pinisil-pisil ito pagkatapos ay pinagapang niya ito sa kanang
bahagi ng aking leeg, at pinagapang hanggang kanang tenga at saka
kiniliti. Dito ko inalis ang kaniyang kamay sa pamamagitan ng aking
kaliwang kamay. At saka ko sinabi:
Lourdes: Sir, yung kamay ninyo alisin niyo!
Natapos ko rin ang liham na pinagagawa niya pero halos hindi ko na
maintindihan ang na-isulat ko dahil sa takot at inis na nararamdaman
ko.[4]
After the last incident narrated, Domingo filed for leave of absence and asked to
be immediately transferred. Thereafter, she filed the Complaint for sexual harassment on
the basis of Administrative Order No. 250, the Rules and Regulations Implementing RA
7877 in the Department of Labor and Employment.

The following day, Secretary Laguesma submitted a copy of the Committee
Report and Recommendation to the OP, but with the recommendation that the penalty
should be suspension for six (6) months and one (1) day, in accordance with AO 250.
[7]

On May 8, 2000, the OP, through Executive Secretary Zamora, issued AO 119,
the pertinent portions of which read:
Upon a careful scrutiny of the evidence on record, I concur with
the findings of the Committee as to the culpability of the respondent
[Rayala], the same having been established by clear and convincing
evidence. However, I disagree with the recommendation that
respondent be meted only the penalty of suspension for six (6) months
and one (1) day considering the circumstances of the case.
What aggravates respondents situation is the undeniable
circumstance that he took advantage of his position as the superior of
the complainant. Respondent occupies the highest position in the
NLRC, being its Chairman. As head of said office, it was incumbent
upon respondent to set an example to the others as to how they should
conduct themselves in public office, to see to it that his subordinates
work efficiently in accordance with Civil Service Rules and Regulations,
and to provide them with healthy working atmosphere wherein coworkers treat each other with respect, courtesy and cooperation, so that
in the end the public interest will be benefited (City Mayor of
Zamboanga vs. Court of Appeals, 182 SCRA 785 [1990]).
What is more, public service requires the utmost integrity and
strictest discipline (Gano vs. Leonen, 232 SCRA 99 [1994]). Thus, a
public servant must exhibit at all times the highest sense of honesty and
integrity, and utmost devotion and dedication to duty (Sec. 4 (g), RA
6713), respect the rights of others and shall refrain from doing acts
contrary to law, and good morals (Sec. 4(c)). No less than the
Constitution sanctifies the principle that a public office is a public trust,
and enjoins all public officers and employees to serve with the highest
degree of responsibility, integrity, loyalty and efficiency (Section 1,
Article XI, 1987 Constitution).

Upon receipt of the Complaint, the DOLE Secretary referred the Complaint to the
OP, Rayala being a presidential appointee. The OP, through then Executive Secretary
Ronaldo Zamora, ordered Secretary Laguesma to investigate the allegations in the
Complaint and create a committee for such purpose. On December 4, 1998, Secretary
Laguesma issued Administrative Order (AO) No. 280, Series of 1998, [5] constituting a
Committee on Decorum and Investigation (Committee) in accordance with Republic Act
(RA) 7877, the Anti-Sexual Harassment Act of 1995.[6]

Given these established standards, I see respondents acts not
just [as] a failure to give due courtesy and respect to his co-employees
(subordinates) or to maintain good conduct and behavior but defiance of
the basic norms or virtues which a government official must at all times
uphold, one that is contrary to law and public sense of morality.
Otherwise stated, respondent to whom stricter standards must apply
being the highest official [of] the NLRC had shown an attitude, a frame
of mind, a disgraceful conduct, which renders him unfit to remain in the
service.

The Committee heard the parties and received their respective evidence. On
March 2, 2000, the Committee submitted its report and recommendation to Secretary
Laguesma. It found Rayala guilty of the offense charged and recommended the imposition
of the minimum penalty provided under AO 250, which it erroneously stated as suspension
for six (6) months.

WHEREFORE, in view of the foregoing, respondent Rogelio I.
Rayala, Chairman, National Labor Relations Commission, is found guilty
of the grave offense of disgraceful and immoral conduct and is

By daring to violate the complainant within the solitude of his chambers. His disgraceful and immoral conduct warrants his removal from office. to wit: Rayala filed a Motion for Reconsideration. Her straightforward and uninhibited testimony was not emasculated by the declarations of Commissioner Rayala or his witnesses. In its Resolution [12] dated September 4. 2001 is MODIFIED to the effect that the penalty of dismissal is DELETED and instead the penalty of suspension from service for the maximum period of one (1) year is HEREBY IMPOSED upon the petitioner. The rest of the challenged decision stands. It said: The complainant narrated her story complete with details.[20] On June 28. The Republic then filed its own Petition for Review.[16] Pursuant to the internal rules of the CA. 155831 . 2002 Resolution. holding the Chairmanship of the National Labor Relations Commission. x x x Moreover. the instant petition is hereby DISMISSED and Administrative Order No. No cost. The CA pointed out that Rayala was dismissed for disgraceful and immoral conduct in violation of RA 6713. the Court directed the consolidation of the three (3) petitions.P. Commissioner Rayala IN VIEW OF ALL THE FOREGOING. the Court recalled its June 26 Resolution and referred the petition to the Court of Appeals (CA) for appropriate action. the CA modified its earlier Decision: ACCORDINGLY. It held that the OP was correct in concluding that Rayalas acts violated RA 6713: Indeed. or be the subject of reprisal from her superiors and perhaps public ridicule if she was not telling the truth. (sic) is DENIED. She filed a Motion for Reconsideration. Commissioner Rayala must pay a high price for the honor bestowed upon him. the petition was reinstated. which we denied in our February 19. 2000 are AFFIRMED IN TOTO. 2000. Occupying as he does such an exalted position. Commissioner Rayala has not proven any vicious motive for Domingo and her witnesses to invent their stories. Rayala likewise filed a Petition for Review[19] with this Court essentially arguing that he is not guilty of any act of sexual harassment. 2000.[10] Rayala filed a Motion for Reconsideration[11] on August 15. That the acts complained of were committed within the sanctuary of [his] office compounded the objectionable nature of his wrongdoing. 119 as well [as] the Resolution of the Office of the President in O. hence. 00-E-9118 dated May 24. It held that there was sufficient evidence on record to create moral certainty that Rayala committed the acts he was charged with.[14] SO ORDER[ED]. 329 SCRA 502 [2000]). 2015 hereby DISMISSED from the service effective upon receipt of this Order.R. Thus. it dismissed the petition. which the OP denied in a Resolution [8] dated May 24. the same was dismissed in a Resolution dated June 26. a Special Division of Five was constituted. Besides.[17] In its October 18. Rayala failed to substantiate his contrived conspiracy. the Republic filed a Motion for Reconsideration of the CAs October 18. The CA denied the same in its June 3. the Code of Conduct and Ethical Standards for Public Officials and Employees. Justice Reyes dissented mainly because AO 250 states that the penalty imposable is suspension for six (6) months and one (1) day. which the Court granted. Noroa. 2002 Resolution. 2000. the Decision dated December [14].AGRARIAN LAW AND SOCIAL LEGISLATION FULL CASES BATCH 1 JULY 2. Justices Vasquez and Tolentino voted to affirm the December 14 Decision. It is very unlikely that they would perjure themselves only to accommodate the alleged conspiracy to oust petitioner from office. SO ORDERED. Meanwhile. It also held that Rayalas dismissal was proper. G. SO ORDERED. 2001. 2004. However. placed the integrity of his office in disrepute. it is improbable that the complainant would concoct a story of sexual harassment against the highest official of the NLRC and thereby expose herself to the possibility of losing her job. the dispositive portion of which reads: ACCORDINGLY. Case No. The CA rendered its Decision[13] on December 14. 2003 Resolution for having a defective verification. [Rayala] was a public official. 2003 Resolution. It is a hornbook doctrine that conspiracy must be proved by positive and convincing evidence (People v. 2000. SO ORDERED. Domingo filed a Petition for Review[18] before this Court. public respondents Motion for Reconsideration. Save for his empty conjectures and speculations.[15] Rayala timely filed a Motion for Reconsideration. entrusted with the sacred duty of administering justice.[9] However. No. by a majority vote. He must comport himself at all times in such a manner that the conduct of his everyday life should be beyond reproach and free from any impropriety. 2000 for disregarding the hierarchy of courts. He then filed a Petition for Certiorari and Prohibition with Prayer for Temporary Restraining Order under Rule 65 of the Revised Rules on Civil Procedure before this Court on June 14.

WHICH RUNS COUNTER TO THE RECENT PRONOUNCEMENTS OF THIS HONORABLE SUPREME COURT. 2015 Domingo assails the CAs resolution modifying the penalty imposed by the Office of the President. AND NOW. Acosta. THE ACTS OF HEREIN PETITIONER DO NOT CONSTITUTE SEXUAL HARASSMENT AS LAID DOWN BY THE En Banc RULING IN THE CASE OF AQUINO vs. Rayala assails the OPs interpretation. request. BY APPLYING DOLE A. ibid. re-employment. CONTRARY TO THE FINDINGS OF THE COURT OF APPEALS. or requirement do not constitute sexual harassment as contemplated by the law. or requirement of a sexual The Republic raises this issue: . Likewise. AS WELL AS IN THE APPLICATION OF EXISTING LAWS. Sexual harassment may be committed in any of the following forms: a) Overt sexual advances. his dismissal from the service is a prerogative that is entirely with the President. he claims that intent is an essential element of the offense because the law requires as a conditio sine qua non that a sexual favor be first sought by the offender in order to achieve certain specific results. No.[21] Rayala asserts that Domingo has failed to allege and establish any sexual favor. Hence. THE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS.[26] Rayala next argues that AO 250 expands the acts proscribed in RA 7877. She argues that the power to remove Rayala.R. The President was well within his power when he fittingly used that prerogative in deciding to dismiss the respondent from the service. Thus. (b) the same is made a pre-condition to hiring. d) Any other act or conduct of a sexual nature or for purposes of sexual gratification which is generally annoying. INTENT IS AN INDISPENSABLE ELEMENT IN A CASE FOR SEXUAL HARASSMENT.[27] He posits that these acts alone without corresponding demand. The President has the prerogative to determine the proper penalty to be imposed on an erring Presidential appointee. Rayala raises the following issues: I. The law did not delegate to the employer the power to promulgate rules which would provide other or additional forms of sexual harassment. request. No. 7877. AO No.[29] G. THE HONORABLE COURT ERRED IN ITS FINDING THAT IT IS AN OFFENSE THAT IS MALUM PROHIBITUM. its bureaus and offices. a presidential appointee. It was merely Domingos perception of malice in his alleged acts a product of her own imagination[25] that led her to file the sexual harassment complaint. or to come up with its own definition of sexual harassment. 250 refers only to the instances wherein the DOLE Secretary is the disciplining authority. The Court of Appeals erred in modifying the penalty for the respondent from dismissal to suspension from service for the maximum period of one year.[23] Section 1. c) Request or demand for sexual favors including but not limited to going out on dates. HAS MISAPPLIED AND EXPANDED THE DEFINITION OF SEXUAL HARASSMENT IN THE WORKPLACE UNDER R. 250. She raises this issue: favor.AGRARIAN LAW AND SOCIAL LEGISLATION FULL CASES BATCH 1 JULY 2. she argues that the same was not intended to cover cases against presidential appointees. Forms of Sexual Harassment. In particular. outings or the like for the same purpose. According to Rayala.[22] As to the applicability of AO No. is lodged with the President who has control of the entire Executive Department. Sexual harassment is committed with the perpetrators deliberate intent to commit the offense. or request from petitioner in exchange for her continued employment or for her promotion. he posits that for sexual harassment to exist under RA 7877. as upheld by the CA.O. Thus. 250. 155840 FORMS OF SEXUAL HARASSMENT In his petition. The OPs decision was arrived at after affording Rayala due process. 158700 Invoking Aquino v. b) Unwelcome or improper gestures of affection. the acts imputed to him are without malice or ulterior motive. not against society as a whole. or (c) the denial thereof results in discrimination against the employee. the AO does not circumscribe the power of the President to dismiss an erring presidential appointee. CONTRARY TO THE FINDINGS OF THE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS. III. and thus. He argues that sexual harassment is considered an offense against a particular person.[28] He alleges that the rule-making power granted to the employer in Section 4(a) of RA 7877 is limited only to procedural matters.. he assails the definition of the forms of sexual harassment: Rule IV G. II. THE INVESTIGATION COMMITTEE. disgusting or offensive to the victim. No. or continued employment.[24] Rayala argues that the case is the definitive ruling on what constitutes sexual harassment. demand. THE OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT. there must be: (a) demand. ACOSTA. that RA 7877 is malum prohibitum such that the defense of absence of malice is unavailing.A.R.

Domingos petition was reinstated on June 16. it cannot be said that the OSG is guilty of forum shopping. and the Investigating . which led to a more favorable ruling. as did Rayala. i. either simultaneously or successively. the OP and the CA. It cited in its Certification and Verification of a Non-Forum Shopping (sic). 2003. 2003 but the resolution was received by the OSG only on July 25. All the issues raised in these three cases can be summed up in two ultimate questions. he is still subject to the Civil Service Law. With respect to Domingos petition. It is noteworthy that the five CA Justices who deliberated on the case were unanimous in upholding the findings of the Committee and the OP. There appears no valid ground for this Court to review the factual findings of the CA. according to the Republic. he should be dismissed from the service. 2002.R. lest it be cited for contempt. therefore. the acts imputed to Rayala. which states that the Chairman of the NLRC holds office until he reaches the age of 65 only during good behavior. factual findings made by quasi-judicial and administrative bodies are accorded great respect and even finality by the courts. While the Republics Motion for Reconsideration was pending resolution before the CA. Under the Civil Service Law. We must point out that it was Rayala who filed the petition in the CA. 2003. the respondent (Rayala). although AO 250 provides only a one (1) year suspension. But Domingo directly filed a Petition for Review with this Court. thus.AGRARIAN LAW AND SOCIAL LEGISLATION FULL CASES BATCH 1 JULY 2. we must resolve a procedural issue raised by Rayala.[34] It consists of filing multiple suits involving the same parties for the same cause of action. at least. The Republic filed its Motion for Reconsideration on November 22. When the CA denied the Motion for Reconsideration. for the purpose of obtaining a favorable judgment. 61026 and then filed a comment in G. it will not prevent the OP from validly imposing the penalty of dismissal on Rayala. 155840. His acts constitute unwelcome or improper gestures of affection and are acts or conduct of a sexual nature. On the other hand.[30] The Republic argues that Rayalas acts constitute sexual harassment under AO 250. Thus. we find no reason to deviate from this rule. It argues that even though Rayala is a presidential appointee. 2002. 2003. the Republic filed its own Petition for Review with this Court on July 3. No. even if it had an unresolved motion for reconsideration with the CA. but three independent bodies: the Committee.R. which it submitted on June 16.[36] Reviewing the antecedents of these consolidated cases. Rayala himself filed a motion for reconsideration of the CAs December 21. 2015 Whether or not the President of the Philippines may validly dismiss respondent Rayala as Chairman of the NLRC for committing acts of sexual harassment. he may be removed from office if it is proven that he has failed to live up to this standard.[40] Indeed. on December 2. The power to remove the NLRC Chairman solely rests upon the President. it had to comply. We do not agree. therefore.[37] Based on the foregoing. No. for the purpose of obtaining a favorable judgment. namely: (1) Did Rayala commit sexual harassment? (2) If he did. Rayala filed his petition before this Court on November 21. it was merely exercising a right. constitute grave misconduct punishable by dismissal from the service. That Rayala and Domingo had by then already filed cases before the SC did not take away this right. that there was a case involving the same facts pending before this Court denominated as G. (2) identity of the rights asserted and relief prayed for. of the parties who represent the same interest in both actions. it was directed by this Court to file its Comment on Rayalas petition. 2002. [39] The principle. the common factual finding of not just one.. the OP. limited only by the requirements under the law and the due process clause. however. He accuses the Office of the Solicitor General (OSG).R. The parties adversely affected by this ruling (Domingo and the Republic) had the right to question the same on motion for reconsideration. what is the applicable penalty? Initially.[33] Since Rayalas security of tenure is conditioned upon his good behavior. it cannot be said that the OSG file[d] multiple suits involving the same parties for the same cause of action. which are generally annoying or offensive to the victim. the same had already been dismissed on February 19. This argument. 2002. is also supported by Article 215 of the Labor Code. the lowering of the penalty from dismissal to one-year suspension. When the Republic opted to file a motion for reconsideration.[32] The Republic adds that Rayalas position is invested with public trust and his acts violated that trust. That Rayala committed the acts complained of and was guilty of sexual harassment is. with the Republic as the adverse party. or after it had filed its own petition. of forum shopping because it filed a motion for reconsideration of the decision in CA-G. Accordingly. They found the assessment made by the Committee and the OP to be a meticulous and dispassionate analysis of the testimonies of the complainant (Domingo). and (3) identity of the two preceding particulars such that any judgment rendered in the other action will amount to res judicata in the action under consideration or will constitute litis pendentia. of seeking and possibly securing a favorable opinion in another forum. 155840 before this Court.[35] There is forum shopping when the following elements concur: (1) identity of the parties or. SP No. dictates that such findings should bind us. when this Court directed the Republic to file its Comment on Rayalas petition. 2003. It should be remembered that when supported by substantial evidence. The Republic further claims that. Rayalas dismissal is valid and warranted under the circumstances. other than by appeal or special civil action for certiorari. against whom an adverse judgment or order has been rendered in one forum. We now proceed to discuss the substantive issues. Forum shopping is an act of a party.[31] It also contends that there is no legal basis for the CAs reduction of the penalty imposed by the OP. as counsel for the Republic. disgraceful and immoral conduct.e. as the latter is founded on the same set of facts. 2001 Decision. [38] They differed only on the appropriate imposable penalty. and their respective witnesses. either simultaneously or successively. we note that the CA rendered the assailed Resolution on October 18.

(a) In a work-related or employment environment. re-employment or continued employment of said individual. or privileges. It shall also conduct the investigation of the alleged cases constituting sexual harassment. settlement or prosecution of acts of sexual harassment. trainors and students or trainees to increase understanding and prevent incidents of sexual harassment. trainor. however. The same section. Work. Administrative sanctions shall not be a bar to prosecution in the proper courts for unlawful acts of sexual harassment. prescribing the procedure for the investigation or sexual harassment cases and the administrative sanctions therefor. or the refusal to grant the sexual favor results in limiting. Section 3 thereof defines work-related sexual harassment in this wise: Sec. And quite significantly. education or training-related sexual harassment is committed by an employer. to prevent or deter the commission of acts of sexual harassment and to provide the procedures for the resolution. These findings are now conclusive on the Court. or in granting said individual favorable compensation. in relation to Section 6. coaches. Education or Training Environment. manager. teacher. sexual harassment is committed when: (1) The sexual favor is made as a condition in the hiring or in the employment. 3. deprive or diminish employment opportunities or otherwise adversely affect said employee. professors. Work. . The committee shall conduct meetings. as the case may be. through their duly designated representatives. in relation to Section 7 on penalties. professor. 4. the committee shall be composed of at least one (1) representative each from the management. regardless of whether the demand. (a) The law penalizing sexual harassment in our jurisdiction is RA 7877. demands. Duty of the Employer or Head of Office in a Workrelated. guidelines on proper decorum in the workplace and educational or training institutions. An action for each can proceed independently of the others. [43] This rule applies with full force to sexual harassment. the union. among others. teachers. which states that the wrongful acts or omissions of a public officer may give rise to civil. In the case of a work-related environment. having authority. promotions. with other officers and employees. if any. segregating or classifying the employee which in a way would discriminate.: He insists. also in relation to Section 3. supervisor. hostile. Promulgate appropriate rules and regulations in consultation with and jointly approved by the employees or students or trainees. or (3) The above acts would result in an intimidating. criminal and administrative liability. agent of the employer. governs the procedure for administrative cases. instructors. the employer or head of office shall: We find respondents insistence unconvincing. coach. influence or moral ascendancy over another in a work or training or education environment. This section. viz. The said rules and regulations issued pursuant to this section (a) shall include. (b) Create a committee on decorum and investigation of cases on sexual harassment. Towards this end. the employees from the supervisory rank. instructor. Basic in the law of public officers is the three-fold liability rule. (2) The above acts would impair the employees rights or privileges under existing labor laws. that these acts do not constitute sexual harassment. or offensive environment for the employee. request.[42] Sec. requests or otherwise requires any sexual favor from the other.[41] Rayala urges us to apply to his case our ruling in Aquino v. conditions. educational or training environment or institution. and from the rank and file employees. Acosta. authorizes the institution of an independent civil action for damages and other affirmative relief. Section 4. 2015 Committee. Education or Training-related Sexual Harassment Defined.AGRARIAN LAW AND SOCIAL LEGISLATION FULL CASES BATCH 1 JULY 2. or requirement of a sexual favor as a condition for her continued employment or for her promotion to a higher position. defines the criminal aspect of the unlawful act of sexual harassment. request or requirement for submission is accepted by the object of said Act. Rayala himself admits to having committed some of the acts imputed to him. or any other person who. because Domingo did not allege in her complaint that there was a demand. It shall be the duty of the employer or the head of the work-related. terms.

Flores. professors or coaches and students or trainees. Salonga for investigation. Likewise. because he is charged with the administrative offense. without malice. correctly ruled that Rayalas culpability is not to be determined solely on the basis of Section 3. he argues that AO 250 does not cover the NLRC. request or requirement of a sexual favor. In Aquino. no sexual harassment had indeed transpired on those six occasions. educational or training institution shall disseminate or post a copy of this Act for the information of all concerned. Chief of the Legal and Technical Staff of the Court of Tax Appeals (CTA). First. instructors. Atty. and Judge Acosta was exonerated. there is no manifest sexual undertone in all those incidents. was limited to initiating the investigation process. that the question of whether or not AO 250 covers Rayala is of no real consequence. hostile or offensive environment for the employee. casual and customary in nature. No evidence of intent to sexually harass complainant was apparent. It is clear from the circumstances that most of the kissing incidents were done on festive and special occasions. that the participation of the DOLE.[44] It should be enough that the CA. But it is not necessary that the demand. in the instant case. running his fingers across her neck and tickling her ear.More importantly. Christmas. in a `beso-beso fashion. giving her money allegedly for school expenses with a promise of future privileges. Interestingly. as already adverted to above. She complained of several incidents when Judge Acosta allegedly kissed her. produced a hostile work environment for Domingo. respondent judge would likewise greet her with a peck on the cheek in a 'beso-beso' manner. bereft of malice and lewd design. were all made in the confines of Rayalas office when no other members of his staff were around. request or requirement be made as a condition for continued employment or for promotion to a higher position. of sexual harassment. after the last incident. teachers. as shown by her having reported the matter to an officemate and. While in Aquino. he posits that even assuming AO 250 is applicable to the NLRC. along with the Investigating Committee and the Office of the President. The case was referred to CA Justice Josefina G. done during festive or special occasions and with other people present. The CA. thus. and it does not matter whether it is Judge Acosta's birthday or their birthdays. and they took place in the presence of other people and the same was by reason of the exaltation or happiness of the moment. as the case maybe. filing for a leave of absence and requesting transfer to another unit. after the last incident. the trainors. were carried out with lustful and lascivious desires or were motivated by malice or ill motive.AGRARIAN LAW AND SOCIAL LEGISLATION FULL CASES BATCH 1 JULY 2. Fides Balili. that the OP properly assumed jurisdiction over the administrative case. however. The employer or head of office. Rayala also argues that AO 250 does not apply to him. It may be discerned. and making statements with unmistakable sexual overtones all these acts of Rayala resound with deafening clarity the unspoken request for a sexual favor. 2015 In the case of the educational or training institution. Second. Rayalas acts. . Rayalas invocation of Aquino v. it is not essential that the demand. the OP and the CA that Domingo reported the matter to an officemate and. charged then CTA Presiding Judge (now Presiding Justice) Ernesto Acosta of sexual harassment. To repeat. even if we were to test Rayalas acts strictly by the standards set in Section 3. request or requirement of a sexual favor be articulated in a categorical oral or written statement. from the acts of the offender. Acosta[46] is misplaced. because the factual setting in that case is different from that in the case at bench. The busses on her cheeks were simply friendly and innocent. filed for a leave of absence and requested transfer to another unit. through the Committee created by the Secretary. RA 7877. 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. The events of this case unmistakably show that the administrative charges against Rayala were for violation of RA 7877. New Year's Day and even Valentine's Day. like birthdays. It is enough that the respondents acts result in creating an intimidating. Undeniably. having inappropriate conversations with her. with equal certitude. Aquino was one of Judge Acosta's well wishers. RA 7877. In her report. only that the innocent acts of 'beso-beso' were given malicious connotations by the complainant. the committee shall be composed of at least one (1) representative from the administration. Yet. the Court interpreted the acts (of Judge Acosta) as casual gestures of friendship and camaraderie. Aquino on her cheek were merely forms of greetings. In fact. Theresa Cinco Bactat. further attested that on occasions like birthdays. he would still be administratively liable. Florecita P. and not the assertion of the latter that she was singled out by Judge Acosta in his kissing escapades. which. We find. at the time of the incident. not the criminal infraction. and the inappropriate comments. Judge Acosta's acts of bussing Atty. found substantial evidence to support the administrative charge. Justice Salonga concluded: In all the incidents complained of. Thus. was under the DOLE only for purposes of program and policy coordination. as a form of greeting on occasions when they meet each other. he is not within its coverage because he is a presidential appointee. and put his arm around her shoulder. It is true that this provision calls for a demand. a lawyer who belongs to complainant's department. The fact that respondent judge kisses other people on the cheeks in the 'beso-beso' fashion. Josephine Adalem and Ms. this factual milieu in Aquino does not obtain in the case at bench. Holding and squeezing Domingos shoulders. who stated that they usually practice 'beso-beso' or kissing on the cheeks. In sum. female employees of the CTA pecked respondent judge on the cheek where Atty. running his fingers across her neck and tickling her ear. was corroborated by Atty. Ma. Justice Salonga found 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 one of several festive occasions. contrary to Rayalas claim. and a circumstance absent in Aquino.[47] This Court agreed with Justice Salonga. Ms. Rayalas acts of holding and squeezing Domingos shoulders. Susan Aquino. embraced her. [45] That the acts of Rayala generated an intimidating and hostile environment for Domingo is clearly shown by the common factual finding of the Investigating Committee. she did not even relate to anyone what happened to her.

and participated in the proceedings. he has not proven any ill motive on the part of Domingo and her witnesses which would be ample reason for her to conjure stories about him. As we have already ruled. and to defend ones rights. the Chief Executive did not have unfettered discretion to impose a . Considering that he was not tried for disgraceful and immoral conduct. Section 22(o). [55] In this case. Moreover. Although in the beginning he questioned the authority of the Committee to try him. [52]On the other hand. these being mere conclusions of law made by the prosecutor. A second offense is punishable by dismissal. AO 250 had never really been applied to Rayala. the designation of the offense is not controlling. when the President found that Rayala was indeed guilty of disgraceful and immoral conduct. He alleges that under the pertinent Civil Service Rules. due process has been recognized to include the following: (1) the right to actual or constructive notice of the institution of proceedings which may affect a respondents legal rights. Furthermore. unless sooner removed for causeas provided by law or becomes incapacitated to discharge the duties of the office. The acts or omissions complained of must be alleged in such form as is sufficient to enable a person of common understanding to know what offense is intended to be charged. this Court has held that. Every element of the offense must be stated in the information. On the contrary. and enable the court to pronounce proper judgment. Thus. any finding of liability for sexual harassment may also be the basis of culpability for disgraceful and immoral conduct. On the other point raised. preparation of the investigation report. aggravating or mitigating circumstances cannot be appreciated for purposes of imposing the penalty. disgraceful and immoral conduct is punishable by suspension for a period of six (6) months and one (1) day to one (1) year. The requirement of alleging the elements of a crime in the information is to inform the accused of the nature of the accusation against him so as to enable him to suitably prepare his defense. Rayala decries the alleged violation of his right to due process. (2) a real opportunity to be heard personally or with the assistance of counsel. What facts and circumstances are necessary to be included therein must be determined by reference to the definitions and essentials of the specified crimes. 2015 reception of evidence of the parties. the penalty for the first offense is suspension for six (6) months and one (1) day to one (1) year. Rayala alleges that the CA erred in holding that sexual harassment is an offense malum prohibitum. he should be absolved of the charges against him. even in criminal cases. Thus. who would determine whether there is a valid cause for the removal of Rayala as NLRC Chairman. thus: What is controlling is not the title of the complaint. We reiterate that what is before us is an administrative case for sexual harassment.[50] Next. is qualified by the phrase for cause as provided by law. this Court held that: [i]n administrative proceedings. he argues that the verdict is a sham and total nullity. We also reject Rayalas allegations that the charges were filed because of a conspiracy to get him out of office and thus constitute merely political harassment. This power. personally and with counsel. it was to serve merely as an auxiliary procedural guide to aid the Committee in the orderly conduct of the investigation. but the description of the crime charged and the particular facts therein recited. as the proper disciplining authority. (3) a tribunal vested with competent jurisdiction and so constituted as to afford a person charged administratively a reasonable guarantee of honesty as well as impartiality. to present witnesses and evidence in ones favor. If it was used at all. He also scored the OPs decision finding him guilty of disgraceful and immoral conduct under the Revised Administrative Code and not for violation of RA 7877.[51] Thus. it is the President of the Philippines. the Chairman of the NLRC shall hold office during good behavior until he or she reaches the age of sixty-five. It is noteworthy that under AO 250. we now determine the proper penalty to be imposed.AGRARIAN LAW AND SOCIAL LEGISLATION FULL CASES BATCH 1 JULY 2. No information for a crime will be sufficient if it does not accurately and clearly allege the elements of the crime charged. He accuses the Committee on Decorum of railroading his trial for violation of RA 7877. In previous cases. however. A conspiracy must be proved by clear and convincing evidence. the acts imputed to Rayala have been proven as fact.[48] The records of the case indicate that Rayala was afforded all these procedural due process safeguards. and (4) a finding by saidtribunal which is supported by substantial evidence submitted for consideration during the hearing or contained in the records or made known to the parties affected. He also argues that since he is charged administratively. while the penalty for the second offense is dismissal. nor the designation of the offense charged or the particular law or part thereof allegedly violated. Rule XVI of the Omnibus Rules Implementing Book V of the Administrative Code of 1987[53] and Section 52 A(15) of the Revised Uniform Rules on Administrative Cases in the Civil Service[54] both provide that the first offense of disgraceful and immoral conduct is punishable by suspension of six (6) months and one (1) day to one (1) year. Rayala attacks the penalty imposed by the OP. His bare assertions cannot stand against the evidence presented by Domingo. Under the Labor Code. ill motive is belied by the fact that Domingo and her witnesses all employees of the NLRC at that time stood to lose their jobs or suffer unpleasant consequences for coming forward and charging their boss with sexual harassment. With the foregoing disquisitions affirming the finding that Rayala committed sexual harassment. sexual harassment amounts to disgraceful and immoral conduct. whether the crime of sexual harassment is malum in se or malum prohibitum is immaterial. We hold that Rayala was properly accorded due process. He argues that intent is an essential element in sexual harassment. and recommending the appropriate action to be taken by the OP.[49] he appeared. and since the acts imputed to him were done allegedly without malice. Under AO 250.

the imposable penalty for the first offense of either the administrative offense of sexual harassment or for disgraceful and immoral conduct is suspension of six (6) months and one (1) day to one (1) year. with the rank equivalent to a CA Justice. Thus. It is enough that the respondent’s acts result in creating an intimidating. the maximum penalty shall be imposed. Unfortunately for him. Rayala. Domingo (Domingo). taking advantage of his superior position. the petitions in G.[59] this Court. contrary to Rayala’s claim. the duty of every employer to protect its employees from oversexed superiors. there must be: condition to hiring. Likewise.[56] taking undue advantage of a subordinate may be considered as an aggravating circumstance [57] and where only aggravating and no mitigating circumstances are present. his dismissal from the service. Instead of he being in loco parentis over his subordinate employees. the inquiry showed that he has been found wanting. Rayala committed sexual harassment. and 158700 are DENIED. WHEREFORE.R. posits that for sexual harassment to exist under RA 7877. request. in upholding the liability of therein respondent Judge. so that they may work efficiently in a healthy working atmosphere. It may be discerned. Even if the OP properly considered the fact that Rayala took advantage of his high government position.AGRARIAN LAW AND SOCIAL LEGISLATION FULL CASES BATCH 1 JULY 2. request or requirement be made as a condition for continued employment or for promotion to a higher position. or requirement of a sexual favor. it still could not validly dismiss him from the service. request or requirement of a sexual favor be articulated in a categorical oral or written statement. however. (b) the same is made a pre- In yet another case. Judge Arceo. a penalty which can only be imposed upon commission of a second offense. 155831. SP No. said: filed a Complaint for sexual harassment against Chairman Rogelio I. calls for a “demand. Courtesy demands that he should set a good example. from the acts of the offender. it was error for the Office of the President to impose upon Rayala the penalty of dismissal from the service. And when such moral perversity is perpetrated against his subordinate. 61026 is AFFIRMED.R. SO ORDERED. Lourdes T. 2002 Resolution of the Court of Appeals in CA-G. It is the right. Rayala 546 SCRA 90 Facts: Ma. He took advantage of his position and power in order to carry out his lustful and lascivious desires. Ratio:It is true that Section 3. Under theRevised Uniform Rules on Administrative Cases in the Civil Service. 2015 penalty other than the penalty provided by law for such offense. . re-employment. this Court declared: As a managerial employee. he provides a justifiable ground for his dismissal for lack of trust and confidence. He failed to live up to his higher standard of responsibility when he succumbed to his moral perversity. respondent was the one who preyed on them. It is his character that is in question here and sadly. Domingo vs. or continued employment.[60] It is incumbent upon the head of office to set an example on how his employees should conduct themselves in public office. with equal certitude. He even puts Domingos character in question and casts doubt on the morality of the former President who ordered. the foregoing premises considered. In Talens-Dabon v. Rayala holds the exalted position of NLRC Chairman. he being the executive judge. 155840.” But it is not necessary that the demand. the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC). All of the acts of Rayala resound with deafening clarity the unspoken request for a sexual favor. hostile or offensive environment for the employee.[58] Hence. it is not essential that the demand. No pronouncement as to costs. or © the denial thereof results in discrimination against the employee. the maximum penalty that can be imposed on Rayala is suspension for one (1) year.[61] Rayala has thrown every argument in the book in a vain effort to effect his exoneration. the October 18. Nos. Consequently. As cited above. Rayala of The actuations of respondent are aggravated by the fact that complainant is one of his subordinates over whom he exercises control and supervision. RA 7877. request or requirement of a sexual favor. (a) demand. Issue: Did Rayala commit sexual harassment? Held: Yes. petitioner is bound by more exacting work ethics. Accordingly. it is not unavailing that rigid standards of conduct may be demanded of him. these are not significant factors in the disposition of the case. albeit erroneously. then Stenographic Reporter III at the NLRC. nay.

he asked her to lie down in the backseat of his car. Contrary to law. Philippines and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court. naive and coming from a broken family. AAA was soon overwhelmed by petitioners persistence and slowly got attracted to him. was her professor in her Philosophy II class in the first semester of the school year 1997 to 1998. On July 18. AAA and her friends ignored him but he pulled each of them towards him to lie with him in bed. complainant. AAA and her friends regretted having accepted petitioners invitation. committed as follows: That on or about and sometime during the month of November 1997 up to 1998. they agreed to keep things a secret. For fear of embarrassment in case their classmates got wind of what happened. the above-named accused. 1997. petitioner butted in and bragged that it was nothing compared to his collection of xxx-rated films.. Young. petitioner told her that he gave her a final grade of 3. 2015 MICHAEL JOHN Z. MALTO vs REPUBLIC OF THE PH. Makati City. He suggested that they just cuddle up together. Michael John. Michael John. a professor. to indulge in sexual intercourse for several times with him as in fact said accused had carnal knowledge.5 when she promised not to disclose his intimate messages to her to anyone.m. AAA and two of her friends went with him. REPUBLIC ACT 7610.[6] Petitioner did not make a plea when arraigned. petitioner apologized for his actuations. stating that her mid-term grade was 1. To the shock of AAAs group. the above-named accused. 2004 of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G. He also cautioned her not to tell anyone about their affair as it could jeopardize his job. private complainant AAA was 17 years old. Since she was not feeling well at that time. unlawfully and feloniously take advantage and exert influence. at around 11:00 a. When AAA secured her class card in Philosophy II at the start of the second semester. AS AMENDED. ARTICLE III. He stopped only when . AAA. Philippines and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court. On November 19. 1997. unlawfully and feloniously induce and/or seduce his student at Assumption College. he lectured on and demonstrated sexual acts he had already experienced. in Pasay City. [7] She was a college student at the Assumption College in San Lorenzo Village. his calls and messages became more frequent. did then and there willfully. a professor. Petitioner was disappointed when he found out there was neither a video cassette player (on which he could play his video tapes) nor an x-rated show on the closed-circuit television. petitioner reiterated his invitation to AAA and her friends to watch his collection of pornographic films. while AAA and her friends were discussing the movie Kama Sutra. MALTO of VIOLATION OF SECTION 5(a). 1997. AS AMENDED. petitioner started to show AAA amorous attention. in Pasay City.R. 25925 affirming with modification the decision [3]of Branch 109 of the Regional Trial Court of Pasay City in Criminal Case No. 1997. Thereafter. The prosecution established the following: At the time of the incident. Petitioner was originally charged in an information which read: The undersigned Assistant City Prosecutor accuses MICHAEL JOHN Z. After the mandatory pre-trial. He gave her a grade of 1. a minor of 17 years old. ARTICLE III. REPUBLIC ACT 7610. She resisted his advances but he was too strong for her. They resisted until he relented. They rode in his car and he brought them to the Anito Lodge on Harrison St. G. MALTO of VIOLATION OF SECTION 5(b). did then and there willfully. Petitioner. She was surprised when he brought her to Queensland Lodge[9] on Harrison St. 164733 Whereas. Metro Manila. 00-0691 which found petitioner Michael John Z.2. Malto guilty for violation of paragraph 3. On October 3. Malto. He told them to address him simply as Mike. a minor of 17 years old. committed as follows: That on or about and sometime during the month of November 1997 up to 1998. Z. the trial court entered for him a plea of not guilty. He called her on the phone and paged[8] her romantic messages at least thrice a day. touched her breasts and placed his hand inside her blouse. Section 5(a). Z.[4] as amended. Contrary to law. Their conversation always started innocently but he had a way of veering the subject to sex. Soon. in Pasay City. Once inside the motel room.AGRARIAN LAW AND SOCIAL LEGISLATION FULL CASES BATCH 1 JULY 2. they had a mutual understanding and became sweethearts. No. relationship and moral ascendancy and induce and/or seduce his student at Assumption College.R. Metro Manila. AAA agreed to have lunch with petitioner outside the premises of the college. Malto. (Final preambular clause of the Declaration of the Rights of the Child) This is a petition for review[1] of the decision[2] dated July 30. AAA. Afraid of offending petitioner. CR No. complainant. Article III of RA 7610. then 28. She protested. On October 10. He was the first person to court her. When semestral break came. AAA was having lunch with her friends when petitioner joined their group.[5] This was subsequently amended as follows: The undersigned Assistant City Prosecutor accuses MICHAEL JOHN Z. mankind owes to the child the best it has to give. in Pasay City. They checked in at a calesa room. to indulge in sexual intercourse and lascivious conduct for several times with him as in fact said accused has carnal knowledge. He handed them his organizer and asked them to list down their names and contact numbers. He then invited the group to view his collection. trial on the merits proceeded. Meanwhile. he kissed her at the back and neck. hence.

On learning what her daughter underwent in the hands of petitioner. He angrily stood up saying. this petition. shared their worries. problems and dreams and kissed each other. [11] Petitioner questioned the trial courts decision in the CA. Fine. He also claims that he and AAA were sweethearts and their sexual intercourse was consensual.000 civil indemnity in favor of AAA as it was proper only in a conviction for rape committed under the circumstances under which the death penalty was authorized by law.[14] Hence.. On March 7. he took off his shirt. On hearing this. 1997. hindi na tayo mag-uusap. kung hindi ko makukuha ngayon. neck and breasts and unsnapped her brassiere.000. Scholasticas College (where he was also teaching) preparing a faculty concert slated on December 12. and (2) the sum of P75. lowered her pants and touched her private part. Petitioner contends that the CA erred in sustaining his conviction although it found that he did not rape AAA. the CA modified the decision of the trial court as follows: WHEREFORE. On November 26. she hesitantly replied Fine. For him. he sorted out conflicts of class schedules for the second semester at the Assumption College. On January 3. 1997. BBB. 1997. He insisted that there was no difference between having sex then and after her debut. Depressed and distressed. 2004. They had sexual intercourse. AAA ended her relationship with petitioner. It was repeated for at least 20 times from January 1999 until they broke up in July 1999. As soon as they were inside the room. they spent time together. She refused and said. His employment was also terminated by Assumption College for sexually harassing two of his students. He claimed that the alleged incidents on October 3. 1997. You know I need this and if you will not give in or give it to me. At lunch time. he brought her to Queensland Lodge where they had sexual intercourse for the first time. it rendered a decision finding petitioner guilty. she confided all that happened between her and petitioner to her mother. let us end this. he attended AAAs 18th birthday party. She learned that he was either intimately involved with or was sexually harassing his students in Assumption College and in other colleges where he taught. pinahirapan mo pa ako and laughed. 1999. On November 19. On November 26. lay down in bed and told her. and 1:00 p. He again brought her to Queensland Lodge. I wont hurt you.[13] Hence. 1998.000. the appealed Decision of conviction is AFFIRMED. The last time he saw AAA during the first semester was when she submitted her final paper on October 18. In particular. Dont come to the faculty room anymore.] paragraph 3 of RA 7610[. It was then that AAA realized that she was actually abused by petitioner. petitioner asked AAA to come with him so that they could talk in private. Section 5(a)[. halika na. [12] the appellate court affirmed his conviction even if it found that his acts were not covered by paragraph (a) but by paragraph (b) of Section 5. 00-0691. between 10:30 a. he was at St. tapusin na natin ngayon. to Seventeen (17) Years. Four (4) Months and One (1) Day of reclusion temporal as maximum. Petitioner is wrong. 1997. In a decision dated July 30. Sige na. In July 1999. the Court finds the accused Michael John Malto y Zarsadias guilty beyond reasonable doubt for violation of Article III.00 as civil indemnity is DELETED.000. he quickly undressed while commenting ibibigay mo rin pala. some of which were done at either his or her house when no one was around. 2001. four (4) months and one (1) day to twenty (20) years and to pay civil indemnity in the amount of Php 75. In his defense. petitioner proffered denial and alibi. 1997. On November 29. She refused but he dragged her towards the bed. He went on top of her. That was the last time he saw her.] as amended and hereby sentences him to reclusion temporal in its medium period or an imprisonment of seventeen (17) years. 1997. [10] The dispositive portion read: In view of the foregoing. with the MODIFICATION that (1) appellant MICHAEL JOHN MALTO y ZARSADIAS is hereby sentenced to an indeterminate penalty of Eight (8) Years and One (1) Day of prision mayor as minimum. He told her. It further observed that the trial court failed to fix the minimum term of indeterminate sentence imposed on him. According to petitioner.00 and moral and exemplary damages of Php 50. ayoko. She also lodged a complaint in the Office of the City Prosecutor of Pasay City which led to the filing of Criminal Case No. he should have been acquitted since there was no rape. kissed her lips.00 to minor complainant with subsidiary imprisonment in case of insolvency. He tried to penetrate her but she pushed him away forcefully and she sat up in bed. he was dismissed from the De La Salle University-Aguinaldo for having sexual relations with a student and sexually harassing three other students. 1997 with his colleagues Joseph Hipolito and AJ Lagaso while he was busy checking papers and computing grades on October 10. Article III of RA 7610. He hugged her tightly saying. She replied. Evelyn Bancoro. pumayag ka na. hindi pa ako ready and it was you who said it will be after my debut on December 3. The trial court found the evidence for the prosecution sufficient to sustain petitioners conviction. It also ruled that the trial court erred in awarding P75. THE OFFENSE STATED IN THE INFORMATION WAS WRONGLY DESIGNATED .m. AAA became his sweetheart when she was already 19 years old and after he was dismissed from Assumption College. 1997 and October 10. 1997 did not happen. dito na tayo mag-usap. Mike. She struggled to stop him but he overpowered her. 1997. Pressured and afraid of his threat to end their relationship. 2015 she got angry at him.m. Mike.AGRARIAN LAW AND SOCIAL LEGISLATION FULL CASES BATCH 1 JULY 2. He spent October 3. he attended the birthday treat of a colleague. BBB filed an administrative complaint in Assumption College against him. AAA. On December 27 and 28.

[16] 5. syndicate or group. 2015 In all criminal prosecutions. the child is exploited or intended to be exploited in prostitution and the child. (b) The complaint or information shall state the designation of the offense given by the statute. for money. the approximate date of the commission of the offense and the place where the offense was committed. the following means: a. or any other consideration or due to the coercion or influence of any adult. Article III of RA 7610 to violation of Section 5(a). inducing a person to be a client of a child prostitute by means of written or oral advertisements or other similar means. 2. Taking advantage of influence or relationship to procure a child as a prostitute. reference shall be made to the section or subsection of the statute punishing it. the acts or omissions complained of as constituting the offense.Children. Child Prostitution and Other Sexual Abuse. is below 18 years of age. whether male or female. as amended. facilitates or induces child prostitution. are deemed to be children exploited in prostitution and other sexual abuse. acting as a procurer of a child prostitute. c. 4.[18] The acts or omissions constituting the offense and the qualifying and aggravating circumstances must be stated in ordinary and concise language and not necessarily in the language used in the statute but in terms sufficient to enable a person of common understanding to know what offense is being charged as well as its qualifying and aggravating circumstances and for the court to pronounce judgment. threatening or using violence towards a child to engage him as a prostitute or e. Article III thereof. the designation of the offense by the statute. that the penalty for lascivious conduct when the victim is under twelve (12) years of age shall be reclusion temporal in its medium period. The penalty of reclusion temporal in its medium period to reclusion perpetua shall be imposed upon the following: (a) Those who engage in or promote. the perpetrators shall be prosecuted under Article 335. goods or other pecuniary benefit to a child with intent to engage such child in prostitution. Acting as a procurer of a child prostitute. facilitate or induce child prostitution which include. the act is done through. indulge in sexual intercourse or lascivious conduct. the following: 1. promotes. aver the acts or omissions constituting the offense and specify its qualifying and aggravating circumstances. Giving monetary consideration. the accused commits the act of sexual intercourse or lascivious conduct. d. Paragraphs (a) and (b) of Section 5. whether male or female. Those who commit the act of sexual intercourse or lascivious conduct with a child exploited in prostitution or subjected to other sexual abuse: Provided. for rape and Article 336 of Act No. and xxx xxx xxx (emphasis supplied) The elements of paragraph (a) are: 1.[19] The designation of the offense in the information against petitioner was changed from violation of Section 5(b). Inducing a person to be a client of a child prostitute by means of written or oral advertisements or other similar means. On the other hand. or 3. 2. 2. b. but are not limited to. the complaint or information against him should be sufficient in form and substance. 4. goods or other pecuniary benefit to a child with intent to engage such child in prostitution. but not limited to. who. Threatening or using violence towards a child to engage him as a prostitute. the Revised Penal Code. the elements of paragraph (b) are: 1.AGRARIAN LAW AND SOCIAL LEGISLATION FULL CASES BATCH 1 JULY 2. profit. A complaint or information is sufficient if it states the name of the accused. giving monetary consideration. the act is performed with a child exploited in prostitution or subjected to other sexual abuse and . 3. That when the victim is under twelve (12) years of age. for rape or lascivious conduct.[17] If there is no designation of the offense. taking advantage of influence or relationship to procure a child as a prostitute. as the case may be: Provided. 3815.[15] Pursuant thereto. the name of the offended party. . the accused is entitled to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation against him. paragraph 3. Article III of RA 7610 provide: Section 5. the accused engages in.

anus. or arouse or gratify the sexual desire of any person. NOT BY THE DESIGNATION The designation in the information of the specific statute violated is imperative to avoid surprise on the accused and to afford him the opportunity to prepare his defense accordingly. due to the influence of petitioner. (a) Children refers [to] persons below eighteen (18) years of age or those over but are unable to fully take care of themselves or . Article III. she was deemed to be a child subjected to other sexual abuse as the concept is defined in the opening paragraph of Section 5. when the child indulges in sexual intercourse or lascivious conduct (a) for money. masturbation. On the other hand. AAA indulged in lascivious acts with or allowed him to commit lascivious acts on her. AS AMENDED The first element of Section 5(b).[26] The facts stated in the amended information against petitioner correctly made out a charge for violation of Section 5(b). of the genitalia. or any other consideration. the child. paragraph (b) punishes sexual intercourse or lascivious conduct not only with a child exploited in prostitution but also with a child subjected to other sexual abuse. when he kissed her at the back and neck. 1997. ARTICLE III OF RA 7610. engages in sexual intercourse or lascivious conduct.[22] or an erroneous specification of the law violated[23] does not vitiate the information if the facts alleged clearly recite the facts constituting the crime charged. is below 18 years of age. of any person. whether male or female. Paragraph (a) essentially punishes acts pertaining to or connected with child prostitution. inner thigh. It contemplates sexual abuse of a child exploited in prostitution. the failure to designate the offense by statute. Definition of Terms. 1997. RA 7610. It did not aver that AAA was abused for profit. breast. prostitution. not the nomenclature of the offense. it is the recital of facts of the commission of the offense. Thus. or buttocks. sexual intercourse or lascivious conduct or the molestation. syndicate or group. (emphasis supplied) The second element was likewise present here. 1997. Thus. petitioner could be convicted of the offense on the basis of the facts recited in the information and duly proven during trial. This was repeated on November 26. 1997. degrade. However. These allegations support a charge for violation of paragraph (b). intimidation or influence. (2) on November 26. particularly on child abuse: (g) Sexual abuse includes the employment. either directly or through clothing. The second element refers to the state or condition of the offended party. It covers not only a situation where a child is abused for profit but also one in which a child. under paragraph (a). RA 7610. Section 3 (a). anus or mouth. What it charged was that petitioner had carnal knowledge or committed sexual intercourse and lascivious conduct with AAA. [21] or to mention the specific provision penalizing the act. that determines the crime being charged in the information. profit. The following pronouncement in People v. or assist another person to engage in. bestiality. persuasion. or (b) under the coercion or influence of any adult. THE REAL NATURE OF THE OFFENSE IS DETERMINED BY FACTS ALLEGED IN THE INFORMATION. not paragraph (a). 2015 3. when.AGRARIAN LAW AND SOCIAL LEGISLATION FULL CASES BATCH 1 JULY 2. even if the trial and appellate courts followed the wrong designation of the offense. the child is abused primarily for profit. humiliate. enticement or coercion of a child to engage in. or the introduction of any object into the genitalia. Article III of RA 7610 and in Larin. harass.[20] The information against petitioner did not allege anything pertaining to or connected with child prostitution. use. (emphasis supplied) On November 19. 1997 on which date AAA also indulged in sexual intercourse with petitioner as a result of the latters influence and moral ascendancy. Petitioner committed lascivious conduct against and had sexual intercourse with AAA in the following instances: (1) on November 19. Article I of RA 7610 provides: SECTION 3. (h) Lascivious conduct means the intentional touching. groin. through coercion. The third element corresponds to the minority or age of the offended party. Larin[27] is significant: A child is deemed exploited in prostitution or subjected to other sexual abuse.[24] What controls is not the title of the information or the designation of the offense but the actual facts recited in the information. with lewd designs. lascivious exhibition of the genitals or public area of a person. of Section 5. AAA was induced and/or seduced by petitioner who was her professor to indulge in sexual intercourse and lascivious conduct and AAA was a 17-year old minor. Article III. neck and breasts and (3) when he exerted moral influence on her and pressured her until she surrendered herself to him on November 26. Article III of RA 7610 pertains to the act or acts committed by the accused. His acts were covered by the definitions of sexual abuse and lascivious conduct under Section 2(g) and (h) of the Rules and Regulations on the Reporting and Investigation of Child Abuse Cases promulgated to implement the provisions of RA 7610. touched her breasts and placed his hand inside her blouse to gratify his lust. whether of the same or opposite sex. he dragged her towards the bed of the motel room and forcibly kissed her on the lips. with an intent to abuse. The first element was present in this case. In other words. inducement. The third element of the offense was also satisfied. or incest with children. [25] In other words. PETITIONER VIOLATED SECTION 5(B).

neglect. and discrimination or when such acts against the child are committed by the said parent. the conviction of petitioner was proper. guardian. The offense for which he was convicted is punished by a special law while rape is a felony under the Revised Penal Code. (emphasis supplied) On November 19. 2007.[32] Those of tender years deserve its protection. 2007 and November 26. CONSENT OF THE CHILD IS IMMATERIAL IN CRIMINAL CASES INVOLVING VIOLATION OF SECTION 5. and discrimination. is under the obligation to minimize the risk of harm to those who. [37] This is consistent with the declared policy of the State [T]o provide special protection to children from all forms of abuse. as parens patriae.[40] (emphasis supplied) . cruelty. the law should protect her from the harmful consequences[34] of her attempts at adult sexual behavior. spiritual. administrative authorities. because of their minority. AAA was a child as she was below 18 years of age. The language of the law is clear: it seeks to punish [t]hose who commit the act of sexual intercourse or lascivious conduct with a child exploited in prostitution or subjected to other sexual abuse. [31] This is on the rationale that she can easily be the victim of fraud as she is not capable of fully understanding or knowing the nature or import of her actions. It is a malum prohibitum. Everyeffort shall be exerted to promote the welfare of children and enhance their opportunities for a useful and happy life. or even unwittingly tempted by the law. consent is immaterial in cases involving violation of Section 5. exploitation and discrimination. ARTICLE III OF RA 7610 AND RAPE ARE SEPARATE AND DISTINCT CRIMES Petitioner was charged and convicted for violation of Section 5(b). They engaged in these acts out of mutual love and affection. [39] (emphasis supplied) This is also in harmony with the foremost consideration of the childs best interests in all actions concerning him or her. [28] They have different elements.[36] This must be so if we are to be true to the constitutionally enshrined State policy to promote the physical. consistent with the principles of First Call for Children as enunciated in the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child. Since all three elements of the crime were present. The sweetheart theory applies in acts of lasciviousness and rape. are as yet unable to take care of themselves fully. But may the sweetheart theory be invoked in cases of child prostitution and other sexual abuse prosecuted under Section 5. a child is presumed by law to be incapable of giving rational consent to any lascivious act or sexual intercourse. an evil that is proscribed. The State. whether undertaken by public or private social welfare institutions. Thus. and other conditions prejudicial to their development. teacher or person having care or custody of the child fails or is unable to protect the child against abuse. ARTICLE III OFRA 7610 Petitioner claims that AAA welcomed his kisses and touches and consented to have sexual intercourse with him. It operates on the theory that the sexual act was consensual. (Otherwise. exploitation and discrimination.[35] For this reason. and legislative bodies. Article III of RA 7610. petitioner can be held liable for violation of Section 5(b). courts of law. not rape. the sweetheart defense is unacceptable. VIOLATION OF SECTION 5(B). She was therefore within the protective mantle of the law. teacher or person having care and custody of the same. exploitation. It requires proof that the accused and the victim were lovers and that she consented to the sexual relations. therefore. A child exploited in prostitution or subjected to other sexual abuse cannot validly give consent to sexual intercourse with another person. felonies committed against or without the consent of the victim.[38] (emphasis supplied) as well as to intervene on behalf of the child when the parents. to view her as fair game and vulnerable prey.) In other words. Article III of RA 7610? No. 2015 protect themselves from abuse. sexual predators like petitioner will be justified.AGRARIAN LAW AND SOCIAL LEGISLATION FULL CASES BATCH 1 JULY 2. A child cannot give consent to a contract under our civil laws. The mere act of having sexual intercourse or committing lascivious conduct with a child who is exploited in prostitution or subjected to sexual abuse constitutes the offense. Thus. guardian.[33] The harm which results from a childs bad decision in a sexual encounter may be infinitely more damaging to her than a bad business deal. Article III of RA 7610.[30] For purposes of sexual intercourse and lascivious conduct in child abuse cases under RA 7610. provide sanctions for their commission and carry out a program for prevention and deterrence of and crisis intervention in situations of child abuse. moral. intellectual and social well-being of the youth. Article III of RA 7610 despite a finding that he did not commit rape. Unlike rape.[29] The two are separate and distinct crimes. a child should not be deemed to have validly consented to adult sexual activity and to surrender herself in the act of ultimate physical intimacy under a law which seeks to afford her special protection against abuse. neglect. cruelty. exploitation or discrimination because of a physical or mental disability or condition. exploitation. The best interest of children shall be the paramount consideration in all actions concerning them.

164733.000 as moral and exemplary damages. trial courts must specify the award of each item of damages and make a finding thereon in the body of the decision. P50.000 and damages of Php. Costs against petitioner. the proper imposable penalty is reclusion temporal in its maximum period. exploitation and discrimination and with the principle that every person who contrary to law. Petitioner Michael John Z. Because of the mental anxiety and wounded feelings caused by petitioner to her.000 for moral damages.000 civil indemnity in favor of AAA as it was proper only in a conviction for rape committed under the circumstances under which the death penalty was authorized by law. Article III of RA 7610 is reclusion temporal in its medium period to reclusion perpetua. Upon discovery of what AAA underwent. in the absence of an aggravating circumstance. Hence.[44] civil indemnity to the child is proper in a case involving violation of Section 5(b). she had several sessions with the dean for student affairs[49] and the guidance counselor of Assumption College as well as with a psychiatrist. [45] The rule is that.” The trial court found the evidence for the prosecution sufficient to sustain petitioner’s conviction.[42] Since the penalty provided in RA 7610 is taken from the range of penalties in the Revised Penal Code. MICHAEL JOHN Z. SO ORDERED. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES G. Facts: Sometime during the month of November 1997 to 1998.[50] Accordingly. [48] Thus. AAA testified that she was emotionally devastated and lost touch of her inner self as a result of what petitioner did to her. The CA modified the decision of the trial court. the defendant shall be liable for all damages which are the natural and probable consequences of the act or omission complained of. MALTO v. AAA succumbed and both had sexual intercourse. Article III of RA 7610. Article III of RA 7610. 4 months and 1 day to 20 years) and a minimum term to be taken within the range of the penalty next lower to that prescribed by the law: prision mayor in its medium period to reclusion temporal in its minimum period (ranging from 8 years and 1 day to 14 years and 8 months).AGRARIAN LAW AND SOCIAL LEGISLATION FULL CASES BATCH 1 JULY 2. Thus. in crimes and quasi-delicts. the CA erred in affirming the grant of P50. Article III of RA 7610. September 21. Issue: Whether the CA erred in sustaining petitioner’s conviction on the grounds that there was no rape committed since their sexual intercourse was consensual by reason of their “sweetheart” relationship Held: No. THE AWARD OF DAMAGES SHOULD BE MODIFIED The trial court awarded AAA P75.R. Consent is immaterial because the mere act of having sexual intercourse or committing lascivious conduct with a child who is subjected to sexual abuse constitutes the offense. the trial court entered for him a plea of “not guilty.000 as civil indemnity and P50. with the objective of RA 7610 to afford children special protection against abuse. to indulge in sexual intercourse several times with him. it is covered by the first clause of Section 1 of the Indeterminate Sentence Law. AAA’s mother lodged a complaint in the Office of the City Prosecutor of Pasay City which led to the filing of Criminal Case No. Every person criminally liable is civilly liable.[43] Thus. the grant of exemplary damages is unwarranted. the petition is hereby DENIED. AAA.[47] Moreover. Prior to the incident. Petitioner questioned the trial court’s decision in the CA. The trail court rendered a decision finding petitioner guilty and sentenced him to reclusion temporal and to pay an indemnity of Php.000. Doctrine: The “sweetheart theory” cannot be invoked for purposes of sexual intercourse and lascivious conduct in child abuse cases under RA 7610. 000691. for which he is sentenced to 14 years and 8 months of reclusion temporal as minimum to 20 years of reclusion temporal as maximum. the medium of the penalty prescribed by the law. 2015 PETITIONER MAY ENJOY THE BENEFITS OF THE INDETERMINATE SENTENCE LAW The penalty prescribed for violation of the provisions of Section 5. BBB. a child is presumed by law to be incapable of giving rational consent to any lascivious act or sexual intercourse. [41] Notwithstanding that RA 7610 is a special law. Malto is hereby found guilty of violating Section 5(b). The appellate court affirmed his conviction and ruled that the trial court erred in awarding Php. petitioner may enjoy the benefits of the Indeterminate Sentence Law. 50. as amended. The “sweetheart theory” cannot be invoked for purposes of sexual intercourse and . in every case. she is entitled to moral damages of P50. moral damages and exemplary damages should be separate items of award. The petitioner did not make a plea when arraigned.000 as civil indemnity. This was corroborated by her mother and the dean of student affairs of Assumption College. Moreover.000 as moral and exemplary damages. however. 75. he is entitled to a maximum term which should be within the range of the proper imposable penalty of reclusion temporal in its maximum period (ranging from 17 years. J. He is further ordered to pay AAA P50. [46] Thus.000.000 civil indemnity ex delicto shall be awarded in cases of violation of Section 5(b). In the absence of any mitigating or aggravating circumstance. a minor. 2007 Corona. The CA deleted the award for civil indemnity. The rule is that. Pressured and afraid of the petitioner’s threat to end their relationship. P50. willfully or negligently causes damage to another shall indemnify the latter for the same. No. It correctly reasoned that the award was proper only in a conviction for rape committed under the circumstances under which the death penalty is authorized by law. petitioner and AAA had a “mutual understanding” and became sweethearts. Consistent. Malto seduced his student. 75. However.

Petitioner then touched her abdomen with his right hand saying words of endearment and letting the back of his palm touch her forehead. 2015 lascivious conduct in child abuse cases under RA 7610. Jacutin to molest her. Juliet Q. solicit. A week later. blaming herself for being so stupid as to allow Dr. a white car driven by petitioner stopped. Before she alighted from the car. then a 22-year old fresh graduate of nursing. explaining to her his theory on the various aspects of virginity. where she might be considered. being then the City Health Officer of Cagayan de Oro City with salary grade 26 but a high ranking official by express provision of RA 7975. committing the offense in relation to his official functions and taking advantage of his position. 29 November 1995. Shocked at what petitioner did. Dr. telling him angrily that she was through with the research. Surprised. willfully. petitioner casually asked her if she already took her bath. which sexual favor was made as a condition for the employment of Ms. She was requested to be back after lunch.AGRARIAN LAW AND SOCIAL LEGISLATION FULL CASES BATCH 1 JULY 2. hence. a young 22 year-old woman. a public officer. Petitioner replied that there was no vacancy in his office. DR. RICO JACUTIN VS PP GR NO 140604 MARCH 6. trial proceeded. the family referred her to Dr. She felt assured that it was all part of the research. He begged her not to tell anybody about what had just happened. together with her sister. Cagayan de Oro. namely: by demanding from Ms. taking the cue. expose her body and allow her private parts to be mashed and stimulated by the accused. Petitioner suggested that perhaps if her father were not around. did there and then. came to see her on 21 December 1995. single and fresh graduate in Bachelor of Science in Nursing who was seeking employment in the office of the accused. decided to leave. if she were interested. Petitioner told her to raise her foot and lower her pants so that he might confirm it. Petitioner then invited her to go bowling. After dropping by at his house to put on his bowling attire. When it was their turn to talk to petitioner. He put his hands inside her panty until he reached her pubic hair. she told her mother about her meeting with Dr. averred that on 28 November 1995 her father accompanied her to the office of petitioner at the City Health Office to seek employment. he could interview her for the job. she could afford to be honest in her answers to the doctor. eventually. In the morning of 04 December 1994. Yee that she should. Petitioner still pushed her pants down to her knees and held her thigh. in Cagayan de Oro City. thus constituting sexual harassment. Pat. Adaza would later testify that Juliet. Juliet and her father returned to the City Health Office. was coming to town in December to look into putting up a clinic in Lapasan. She expressed hesitation if a physical examination would include hugging her but petitioner assured her that he was only kidding about it. On 01 December 1995. unlawfully and criminally. When asked at one point whether or not she already had a boyfriend. was charged before the Sandiganbayan. Petitioner then inquired whether she had varicose veins. Juliet repaired to the clinic to return the money to petitioner but she was not able to see him until about one oclock in the afternoon. Consent is immaterial because the mere act of having sexual intercourse or committing lascivious conduct with a child who is subjected to sexual abuse constitutes the offense. Juliet was informed by the doctor that the City Health Office had just then filled up the vacant positions for nurses but that he would still see if he might be able to help her. raised it up to her navel.S. Petitioner held her pulse and told her not to be scared.. request sexual favors from Ms. the accused. and she said she was so in a hurry that she did not find time for it. The father. Dr. Petitioner contradicted the testimony of Juliet Yee.00 for her expenses. Before proceeding to petitioners office that afternoon. Juliet told her sister about the incident. Juliet dropped by at the nearby church to seek divine guidance as she felt so confused. City Health Officer Rico Jacutin of Cagayan de Oro City. and that Juliet appeared to be emotionally disturbed. Juliet Q. She hesitated for a while but. who was a boyhood friend. and they were informed by petitioner that a medical group from Texas. 2002 In an accusatory Information. Pat. Moreover. Merlita Adaza for counseling. Petitioner told her to meet him at Borja Street so that people would not see them on board the same car together. He hypothetically asked whether she would tell her family or friends if a male friend happened to intimately touch her. petitioner got back to the car. petitioner again offered her a job in the family planning research undertaking. and she said no. On 16 December 1995. petitioner pled not guilty to the offense charged. She tried to give back the money but petitioner refused to accept it.A. Yee introduced his daughter Juliet who expressed her wish to join the City Health Office. adding that only the City Mayor really had the power to appoint city personnel. Soon. among them. dated 22 July 1996. Justin Yee. at the designated place. He told her to raise her shirt to check whether she had nodes or lumps. she attempted to slash her wrist with a fastener right after relating the incident to her mother. Yee in the Family Program of the Office of the accused. Yee. Juliets father and petitioner were childhood friends. Juliet and her father. the . On 01 December 1995. Petitioner later offered her the job where she would be the subject of a research program. U. Jacutin and the money he gave her but she did not give the rest of the story. demand. Her mother scolded her for accepting the money and instructed her to return it. While driving. Noticing that Juliet was suffering from some psychological problem. Petitioner then inquired whether she was still a virgin. Yee. petitioner urged her to reconsider her decision to quit. Petitioner then fondled her breast. around nine oclock in the morning. she exclaimed hala ka! and instinctively pulled her pants up. Fourth Division. petitioner made several telephone calls to some hospitals to inquire whether there was any available opening for her. Petitioner then started putting up to her a number of questions. with the crime of Sexual Harassment. Not finding any. When she got to the office. He claimed that on 28 November 1995 he had a couple of people who went to see him in his office. Arriving home. she lowered her shirt and embraced her bag to cover herself. The latter informed her that there was a vacancy in a family planning project for the city and that. a child is presumed by law to be incapable of giving rational consent to any lascivious act or sexual intercourse. He then handed over to her P300. Adaza concluded that Juliets frustration was due to post trauma stress. thusly: That sometime on or about 01 December 1995. She got in. The following day.[1] Upon his arraignment. and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court pursuant to the provisions of RA 7975. she and her father went back to the office of petitioner. petitioner. she said no.

On 04 December 1995. and is hereby sentenced to suffer the penalty of imprisonment of six (6) months and to pay a fine of Twenty Thousand (P20. complainant changed her mind and agreed to the research. She did lower . as well as all the other cases filed against him by Vivian Yu. requests or otherwise requires any sexual favor from the other.00) Pesos. for she is now convinced that she would be of help to the research and would gain knowledge from it. Accused is further ordered to indemnify the offended party in the amount of Three Hundred Thousand (P300. But again accused told her that there was no vacancy. Still while inside the car. but did not proceed immediately to the office of the accused. finding the accused. As they were seated side by side. (a) In a work-related or employment environment. He asserted that the complaint for sexual harassment. and later proceed with the research (physical examination). as it was not good for people to see them riding in a car together. He then instructed her to go with him but he would first play bowling. or privileges. Succeeding in convincing the complainant that her physical examination would be a part of a research. influence or moral ascendancy over another in a work or training or education environment. coach. reemployment or continued employment of said individual. Petitioner cannot be convicted of the crime of sexual harassment in view of the inapplicability of Republic Act No. Section 3 of Republic Act 7877 provides: SEC. regardless of whether the demand. Thereafter. Inside the car. accused asked complainant if she would agree that her private parts (bolts) would be seen. her father being a boyhood friend. through its Fourth Division. he was in a meeting with the Committee on Awards in the Office of the City Mayor. It all started from there. Petitioner [has been] denied x x x his constitutional right to due process of law and presumption of innocence on account of the insufficiency of the prosecution evidence to sustain his conviction. Complainant was about to leave the office of the accused when the latter prevailed upon her to stay because he would call one more hospital. In her presence. employee. agent of the employer. Rico Jacutin. penned by Mr. At this juncture. were but forms of political harassment directed at him. 1995. he came back inside the car and asked her if she has taken a bath. it is contended that I. by way of moral damages. but she protested.AGRARIAN LAW AND SOCIAL LEGISLATION FULL CASES BATCH 1 JULY 2. Justice Rodolfo G. She walked from the office of the accused and proceeded to Borja St. She retorted she was not. she agreed to undergo the physical examination. guilty of the crime of Sexual Harassment under Republic Act No. He informed her that he would go home for a while to put on his bowling attire. As complainant looked upon the accused with utmost reverence. 7877. as instructed. a call was made. accused called up a certain Madonna. 3 and 7 of the same Act. supervisor. At this point. Petitioner was the City Health Officer of Cagayan de Oro City. with subsidiary imprisonment in case of insolvency. She explained that she was not able to do so because she left the house hurriedly. where she will just wait for him. accused asked her if she would agree to the offer. Complainant returned at 2:00 oclock in the afternoon. accused abruptly stopped the interview and told the complainant to go home and be back at 2:00 oclock in the afternoon of the same day. Complainant told him she would not agree because the research included hugging. properly known as the Anti-Sexual Harassment Act of 1995. He told her to raise it higher. With assurance given. he asked her about accepting a job in a family planning research project. inquiring if there was a vacancy. as she dropped by a nearby church to ask divine guidance. Work. to attend a hearing before the Office of the Ombudsman for Mindanao. He submitted in evidence a photocopy of his plane ticket.[2] In the instant recourse. Iryn Salcedo.00) Pesos.He then instructed her to lower her pants instead. accused renewed the offer to the complainant to be a part of the research in the Family Planning Program where there would be physical examination. Work. manager. she went back to the office of the accused. as she was confused and at a loss on how to resolve her present predicament. the Sandiganbayan recited the rest of the story: x x x. Dr. II. He did try to show an interest in her plight. No. he called her attention why she was in a pensive mood. And after a while. having authority.Accused assured her that with her cooperation in the research. a position he held when complainant. trainor. 7877 to the case at bar. accused motioned his two (2) secretaries to go out of the room. instructor. when Juliet said she went to his office to return the P300.[3] The above contentions of petitioner are not meritorious. but he was told that she would only accept a registered nurse. teacher. The door was opened to her and she was instructed by the accused to come inside.000. He then assured her that he was just kidding and that a pre-schooler and high schooler have already been subjected to such examination. Mellie Villanueva and Pamela Rodis. dated 05 November 1999. demands.000.00) Pesos.00. December 1. and paternal guidance. but finding no opening suitable for her in his office. she agreed to go with the accused.m. a white car arrived. But accused instructed her to proceed to Borja St. Upon moving closer to the complainant. by way of Exemplary damages and to pay the cost of suit. After a short while. Thinking that it was part of the research. On the understanding of the complainant that they will proceed to the clinic where the research will be conducted. Palattao. 3. As all efforts to look for a job in other hospitals failed. particularly Secs. 2015 afternoon when the alleged incident happened. request or requirement for submission is accepted by the object of said Act. sexual harassment is committed when: (1) The sexual favor is made as a condition in the hiring or in the employment. the accused held her pulse and told her not to be scared. rendered its decision. professor. segregating or classifying the employee which in any way would discriminate. defined and punished under R. deprive or diminish employment opportunities or otherwise adversely affect said employee. And once inside. Two Hundred Thousand (P200. or the refusal to grant the sexual favor results in limiting. The Sandiganbayan concluded: WHEREFORE. or in granting said individual favorable compensation. respect. accused directed her to raise her foot so he could see whether she has varicose veins on her legs. she did as instructed. or any other person who. he did not report to the office for he was scheduled to leave for Davao at 2:35 p. she would gain knowledge from it. convicting the accused RICO JACUTIN Y SALCEDO of the crime of Sexual Harassment. she answered in the negative.000. conditions. a newly graduated nurse. judgment is hereby rendered. Education or Training-related Sexual Harassment Defined. saw him to enlist his help in her desire to gain employment. At 3:00 oclock in the afternoon. The Sandiganbayan. accused asked her if she was a tomboy. education or training-related sexual harassment is committed by an employer. 7877. promotions.A. terms.

Public Health Nurse II. 2015 her pants. she answered that she has lots of decayed teeth. why was Myrna Maagad in possession of the attendance logbook and how was she able to personally bring the same in court when she testified on September 8. and the factual findings of the Sandiganbayan must be respected by. exposing half of her legs. Thinking that he was planning to kiss her. saying. solicit. He advised her then to have them treated. that a recommendation from petitioner in the appointment of personnel in the municipal health office could carry good weight. she admitted during her testimony that she retired from the government service on December 1. Juliet Q.000. with subsidiary imprisonment in case of insolvency. when in fact. Day! (Visayan word of endearment). indicating the traditional way of making the young respect their elders. moral damages and exemplary damages. not by Dr. all of whom were said to have likewise been victims of perverse behavior by petitioner. a public officer. He just exclaimed. socially deleterious actions.00 moral damages. finding Dr. if not indeed conclusive upon.[9] WHEREFORE. particularly in the Minutes of the meeting of the Awards Committee. in relation to his official functions and taking advantage of his position. i.000. instead. complainant instantly parried his hand with her bag. was signed by Myrna Maagad and not by Teresita Rozabal. Exh.00 and P20. in Cagayan de Oro City the accused. she asked him if there could be a right place for physical examination where there would be many doctors. Feeling embarrassed and uncomfortable. In addition. The Court finds it fitting to award in favor of Juliet Yee P30. it should stand to reason. Rico Jacutin. Indeed. a young 22 year-old woman. 1997? Surely. SO ORDERED. she exclaimed. Feeling as if she had lost control of the situation. Juliet Yee. He then promised to give her P15. in the logbook. The Sandiganbayans award of moral and exemplary damages are MODIFIED. hala ka! because he tried to insert his hand into her panty. or as a negative incentive to curb.000. respectively.000. an impression that he could facilitate Juliets employment. under the sub-heading. Exhs. Indeed.[6] no cogent reasons having been sufficiently shown to now hold otherwise. Its award must not appear to be the result of passion or undue prejudice. but this time.[4] While the City Mayor had the exclusive prerogative in appointing city personnel. the attendance of those who attended was individually handwritten by the persons concerned who wrote and signed their names. The Sandiganbayan rightly rejected the defense of alibi proffered by petitioner. that she would not tell anybody about what happened. 3-A and 3-B certify that the officially designated secretary of the Awards Committee was Teresita Rozabal. so you like that there are many doctors! Then he asked her if she has tooth decay. Myrna Maagad could not still be the custodian of the logbook when she testified. she raised her shirt up to her breast. First. 7877. 5. nevertheless. After a short while. 7877. is AFFIRMED. Moral damages are not intended to enrich a complainant but are awarded only to enable an injured party obtain some means that would help obviate the sufferings sustained on account of the culpable action of an offender. an opportunity that is denied the appellate court. Costs against petitioner. the court a quo said: There are some observations which the Court would like to point out on the evidence adduced by the defense. Reacting.e. But then the accused pushed it forward down to her knees and grabbed her legs. Juliet should be recompensed for her mental anguish.[5] Most importantly. The accused retorted that complainant was entertaining malice and reminded her of what she earlier agreed. yet unsure whether she was entertaining malice. particularly Sections 3 and 7 thereof. Shocked.000. Merlita F. of Iryn Lago Salcedo. the Supreme Court is not a trier of facts. 3-A and 3-B) were signed by Teresita Rozabal. petitioner would not have been able to take undue liberalities on the person of Juliet had it not been for his high position in the City Health Office of Cagayan de Oro City. being then the City Health Office. petitioner is ordered to indemnify the offended party. that he was at a meeting of the Committee on Awards. and let the back of his palm touch her forehead. in the amount of P30. Finally. And finally. But the Minutes of the meeting. Tiro and Dr. Accused then held her abdomen. But in the case of Dr.00) Pesos. admitted. Rozabal was the immediate supervisor of witness Myrna Maagad. Tiro and Dr. she informed him that she would not continue with the research. petitioners secretary between 1979 to 1994.00 by way of.. their names were handwritten by clerk Sylvia Tan-Nerry.She was about to open the door of the car when he suddenly grabbed her thigh. by his words and actions. Dr.00 so that she could take the examination. Myrna Maagad testified that the logbook was passed around to attending individuals inside the conference room. Issue: Whether or not the petitioner cannot be convicted of the crime of sexual harassment in view of the inapplicability of Republic Act No.00 exemplary damages to serve as a deterrent against. JACUTIN vs.AGRARIAN LAW AND SOCIAL LEGISLATION FULL CASES BATCH 1 JULY 2. Indeed. He again told her to raise her shirt.000.[8] and it must always reasonably approximate the extent of injury and be proportional to the wrong committed. Second.[7] Conformably with prevailing jurisprudence. has found Juliet to be emotionally and psychologically disturbed and suffering from post trauma stress following her unpleasant experience with petitioner. the tribunal. . she raised her shirt as instructed. she impulsively lower her shirt and embraced her bar while silently asking God what was happening to her and asking the courage to resist accuseds physical advances. as testified to by witness Myrna Maagad on September 8. The assessment on the credibility of witnesses is a matter best left to the trial court because of its unique position of being able to observe that elusive and incommunicable evidence on the deportment of witnesses at the stand. Teresita I. Others Present. The findings of the Sandiganbayan were bolstered by the testimony of Vivian Yu. The documents. 1998. DR. Adaza. and of Farah Dongallo y Alkuino. The Notices to hold the meeting (Exh. Yee. demand. she should be entitled to P20. Rico Jacutin y Salcedo GUILTY of the crime of Sexual Harassment defined and punished under Republic Act No. the questioned decision of the Sandiganbayan in Criminal Case No. you are like my daughter. the grant of moral and exemplary damages by the Sandiganbayan must be tempered to reasonable levels. petitioner himself would appear to have conveyed. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES Facts: Sometime on or about 01 December 1995. 23799. a city health nurse. 1998. He then fondled her breast. However. RICO S. He told her to raise her shirt. request sexual favors from Ms. and penalizing him with imprisonment of six (6) months and to pay a fine of Twenty Thousand (P20. single and fresh graduate in Bachelor of Science in Nursing who was seeking employment in the office of the accused. a psychological counseling expert. Jacutin.

as found by the trial court and the Court of Appeals. PO1 Luardo inquired how much their services would cost. When Gee Ann found out that AAA was no longer a virgin. guys?) : PO1 Unya mga bag-o? Kanang batan-on kay naa mi guests naghulat sa motel. with intent to gain.A. PO1 Luardo and PO1 Veloso testified that their conversation with accused went as follows:chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary Accused Chicks mo dong? (Do you like girls. she worked as a house helper in Mandaue City. just wait and I’ll get them. 9208. at about 1:00 o’clock A. She stayed with her cousin.13 After a few minutes. AAA testified that she was born on January 27. 2008. Indeed. Plaintiff-Appellee. ( a). PO1 Albert Luardo. Philippines. 1991. qualified by Section 6(a). 6. accused returned with AAA and BBB. profit or any other consideration. In March 2008 she stopped working as a house helper and transferred to Cebu City. Indeed. hulat kay magkuha ko.20 On May 2. arrested accused. “Tag kinientos” (P500. coordinated with the police in order to entrap persons engaged in human trafficking in Cebu City. AAA knew that Gee Ann worked in a disco club. 17 years old and BBB for the purpose of prostitution and sexual exploitation. The police confiscated the marked money from accused. 9208 (Qualified Trafficking in Persons).10 PO1 Luardo and PO1 Veloso proceeded to D.”19 CONTRARY TO LAW. The information against accused. states:chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary That on or about the 3rd day of May 2008. private complainants in this case. and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court. are as follows: During trial. Par. This was their pre-arranged signal. by acting as their procurer for different customers. (Are Luardo: they new? They must be young because we have guests waiting at the motel. in the City of Cebu.9 The team went to Queensland Motel and rented Rooms 24 and 25. pretending to be tour guides looking for girls .00). petitioner would not have been able to take undue liberalities on the person of Juliet had it not been for his high position in the City Health Office of Cagayan de Oro City. AAA and BBB “were brought to Room 25 and placed in the custody of the representatives from the IJM and the DSWD.5 a non-governmental organization.6 AAA narrated that in 2007.7 PO1 Luardo and PO1 Veloso were designated as decoys. are they good in sex?)15 Veloso: Accused gave the assurance that the girls were good in sex. 9208. While the City Mayor had the exclusive prerogative in appointing city personnel.AGRARIAN LAW AND SOCIAL LEGISLATION FULL CASES BATCH 1 JULY 2. International Justice Mission (IJM). Accused noticed them and called their attention by saying “Chicks mo dong?” (Do you like girls. Qualified by Sec.8 IJM provided them with marked money. Section 4(a). petitioner himself would appear to have conveyed. SHIRLEY A. Gee Ann. This statement was supported by a copy of her certificate of live birth. the fate of many desperate women is sealed and their futures vanquished. 1 “Chicks mo dong?” With this sadly familiar question being used on the streets of many of our cities. did then and there hire and/or recruit AAA.2 otherwise known as the “Anti-Trafficking in Persons Act of 2003. WHEREFORE.18 Meanwhile. there will be more rescues. Upon proceeding to Room 24.4 The facts. that a recommendation from petitioner in the appointment of personnel in the municipal health office could carry good weight. 2008. with deliberate intent. for money. which was recorded in the police blotter. Cebu City’s red light district. nevertheless. to entertain their guests. It was there where she met her friend. Trafficking in persons is a deplorable crime. dated May 5. she offered AAA work. but she subsequently moved to a boarding house. PO1 Luardo sent a text message to PSI Ylanan that they found a prospective subject. AAA agreed because she needed the money in order to help her father. SPO1 Fe Altubar. v. The rest of the team proceeded to Room 24. Casio was charged for the violation of Republic Act No.) PP.14 Accused Kining duha kauyon mo ani? (Are you satisfied with these two?) : PO1 Maayo man kaha na sila modala ug kayat? (Well. These rooms were adjacent to each other. PO1 Veloso gave PSI Ylanan a missed call. Hopefully. This case resulted in the rescue of two minors from this pernicious practice. (Yes. Accused-Appellant.11 During trial. 4. by his words and actions.)12 : At that point. Room 24 was designated for the transaction while Room 25 was for the rest of the police team. It is committed even though the minor knew about or consented to the act of trafficking.”3 Accused Shirley A.16 PO1 Veloso and PO1 Luardo convinced accused to come with them to Queensland Motel. the accused is guilty. PO1 Veloso handed the marked money to accused. This case involves Republic Act No. AAA recalled that she had sex with her first Chief PSI George Ylanan. it should stand to reason. SPO1 Felomino Mendaros. 2015 Held: No. an impression that he could facilitate Juliet’s employment. of R. guys?). Par. Accused replied.. a minor.M. the said accused. (a). and informed her of her constitutional rights. Jakosalem Street in Barangay Kamagayan. Accused Naa. CASIO.17 As accused counted the money. in Violation of Sec. and PO1 Roy Carlo Veloso composed the team of police operatives.

This court also required the Superintendent of the Correctional Institution for Women to confirm the confinement of accused. she went out to buy supper.44 and (3) Whether accused was properly convicted of trafficking in persons. PSI Ylanan. Branch 14 in Cebu City found accused guilty beyond reasonable doubt and held31 that:chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary Accused had consummated the act of trafficking of person[s] . considering that AAA admitted that she works as a prostitute. The case records of CA-G.A.e. accused is ordered to pay the costs of these proceedings. The dispositive portion of the decision33 reads:chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary WHEREFORE. between 7 p. and a certain Jocelyn to Queensland Motel. Ruelo confirmed accused’s confinement at the Correctional Institution for Women since October 27. Section 6 of R.00 from accused’s right hand “and upon instruction from PCINSP Ylanan recorded the same at the ‘police blotter prior operation’. The two men asked her if she knew someone named Bingbing. . . Case No. Eventually.000.43 (2) Whether the prosecution was able to prove accused’s guilt beyond reasonable doubt even though there was no evidence presented to show that accused has a history of engaging in human trafficking. On the evening of May 2. CBU-83122 is AFFIRMED WITH MODIFICATIONS. considering that there was no prior surveillance and the police did not know the subject of the operation.26 The prosecution also presented the police operatives during trial.]32 Ruling of the Court of Appeals The Court of Appeals affirmed the findings of the trial court but modified the fine and awarded moral damages. AAA was then met by the Department of Social Welfare and Development personnel who informed her that she was rescued and not arrested. That was the first time that she was pimped by accused. . SO ORDERED[. they “rushed to Room 24 and arrested the accused. She received P400. 22 AAA further testified that on May 2. telling her that there were more customers in that area. the instant appeal is hereby DENIED. Section 4 as qualified under paragraph (a). the sole issue may be dissected into the following: (1) Whether the entrapment operation conducted by the police was valid. 2014. while she and BBB went to Room 24. WHEREFORE.00 already consummated the said act. The accused-appellant is accordingly sentenced to suffer the penalty of life imprisonment and a fine of Php2.24 AAA testified that Jocelyn stayed in the taxi. The men informed her that they were actually looking for Gingging. along with other girls.R.000. Counsel for accused40 and the Office of the Solicitor General41 filed their respective manifestations. she contacted Gingging.39 Version of the accused In defense.AGRARIAN LAW AND SOCIAL LEGISLATION FULL CASES BATCH 1 JULY 2.000 as moral damages. She was paid P200. GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt of trafficking in persons under paragraph (a).00 for every customer who selected her. . Gingging convinced her to come because allegedly. 2015 customer.000. The assailed Decision dated 10 August 2010 promulgated by the Regional Trial Court. She replied that she only knew Gingging but not Bingbing. BBB.34 Accused filed a notice of appeal35 on August 28. accused solicited her services for a customer. Through a letter42 dated June 17. SO ORDERED. The police rushed in and told AAA and BBB to go to the other room. It was in Room 24 where the customer paid Shirley. as defined under paragraph (a).m.00). 01490 were received by this court on March 17. SPO1 Mendaros. When accused arrived home. . the ‘solicitation’ for sex and the handing over of the “bust money” of Php1. the act of “sexual intercourse” need not have been consummated for the mere “transaction” i. Branch 14 in Cebu City in Crim. she would be given money by the two males. 2008. While walking.000.45 . 2013. in view of the foregoing premises. 2014. stating that they would no longer file supplemental briefs considering that all issues had been discussed in the appellant’s brief and appellee’s brief filed before the Court of Appeals. For the first few weeks. However. which the Court of Appeals noted and gave due course in its resolution36 dated January 6.25 AAA described that her job as a prostitute required her to display herself.30 Ruling of the trial court The Regional Trial Court.000. and told her to tell Gingging to bring companions.00 as tip.23 Accused brought her. SHIRLEY A.37 In the resolution38 dated April 29. Superintendent IV Rachel D. Gee Ann brought her to Barangay Kamagayan. Gee Ann provided customers for AAA. 9208 for the purpose of letting her engage in prostitution as defined under paragraph [c] of the same Section. CEB-CR No. to 8 p. this court resolved to notify the parties that they may file their respective supplemental briefs within 30 days from notice. based on the arguments raised in accused’s brief.m. 2010. CASIO.21 AAA stated that she knew accused was a pimp because AAA would usually see her pimping girls to customers in Barangay Kamagayan. and SPO1 Altubar testified that after PO1 Veloso had made the missed call to PSI Ylanan. accused testified that she worked as a laundrywoman. she was stopped by two men on board a blue car. Section 3 of R. The sole issue raised by accused is whether the prosecution was able to prove her guilt beyond reasonable doubt.00 and given an additional P500.000 and is ordered to pay each of the private complainants Php150. The trial court noted that AAA requested assistance from the IJM “in conducting the operation against the accused.”27 SPO1 Altubar retrieved the marked money worth P1. 2014. 9208 and sentenced to suffer imprisonment of TWENTY (20) YEARS and to pay a fine of ONE MILLION (Php1. gave her a piece of paper with a number written on it. 2014. the Court finds accused. 2008.”29 Finally.A.

harbouring or receipt of a child for the purpose of exploitation shall be considered “trafficking in persons” even if this does not involve any of the means set forth in subparagraph (a) of this article.”59 Senator Luisa Ejercito Estrada also delivered a sponsorship speech and described trafficking in persons as follows:chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary Trafficking in human beings. mental and other forms of abuse.50 Entrapment operations are valid and have been recognized by courts. At first glance. forced labour or services. 57 The Trafficking Protocol’s entry into force was on December 25. the 1995 Convention on the Rights of the Child.48 In addition. transfer. These laws address issues such as illegal recruitment. it appears that we are very responsive to the problem. deception. forced labor. and the United Nations’ Resolution on Trafficking in Women and Girls. As of this time.46 The police did not conduct prior surveillance and did not even know who their subject was. Thus. R[epublic] A[ct] No. slavery or practices similar to slavery. transportation. 2003. she was instigated into committing the crime. their Parts and Components and Ammunition. Republic Act No. Casio’s conviction. at a minimum. the trial court was correct in stating that accused had “fully consummated the act of trafficking of persons. So it seems.49 Arguments of the plaintiff-appellee The Office of the Solicitor General. is tantamount to modern-day slavery at work. /. 9208 was enacted in order to fully address the issue of human trafficking. servitude or (b) The consent of a victim of trafficking in persons to the intended exploitation set forth in subparagraph (a) of this article shall be irrelevant where any of the means set forth in subparagraph (a) have been used.47Neither did the police know the identities of the alleged victims. Especially Women and Children” (Trafficking Protocol).62 (Emphasis supplied) Thus.. 2000. and Republic Act No. Senator Loren Legarda. if only to emphasize the gravity of its hideousness. abduction. for the purpose of exploitation. Its victims suffer the brunt of this insidious form of violence. AAA admitted that she worked as a prostitute.56 This was ratified by the Philippine Senate on September 30. 6955 or the Mail-Order Bride Act. 2000. Instead. Arguments of accused Accused argues that there was no valid entrapment. falsification of public documents and the mail-order bride scheme. then numbered as Senate Bill No. and approved on May 26. Especially Women and Children. Despite these international agreements. stated that the “Anti-Trafficking Act will serve as the enabling law of the country’s commitment to [the] protocol. prostitution. She denied being a pimp and asserted that she was a laundrywoman. we have yet to come up with a law that shall squarely address human trafficking. 8042 or the Migrant Workers and Overseas Filipino Act. by means of the threat or use of force or other forms of coercion. of deception.. 2015 the removal of organs. Suppress and Punish Trafficking in Persons.55 On December 14. . in her sponsorship speech.58 In the Trafficking Protocol. (2) the Protocol against the Smuggling of Migrants by Land. the exploitation of the prostitution of others or other forms of sexual exploitation.”53 We affirm accused Shirley A. argued that the trial court did not err in convicting accused because witnesses positively identified her as the person who solicited customers and received money for AAA and BBB. 2444. (d) “Child” shall mean any person under eighteen years of age. among others. Republic Act No. of fraud. The UN CTOC is supplemented by three protocols: (1) the Protocol to Prevent. Moreover. counsel for plaintiff-appellee People of the Philippines. including the Trafficking Protocol in October last year. 9208 was passed on May 12. we have also expressed our support for the United Nations’ Convention Against Organized Crime. and indentured servitude. and. Sea and Air. It is exploitation. human trafficking is defined as:chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary Article 3 Use of terms For the purposes of this Protocol: (a) “Trafficking in persons” shall mean the recruitment. of abduction.52Hence. slavery and slavery-like practices. the United Nations Convention on the Protection of Migrant Workers and their Families. Senator Teresa Aquino-Oreta asked if there was a necessity for an anti-trafficking law when other laws exist that cover trafficking. rape. physical. transfer. (c) The recruitment. I. it was her decision to display herself to solicit customers. President.60 During the interpellation of Republic Act No. the Philippines signed the United Nations “Protocol to Prevent. Exploitation shall include. . harboring or transporting persons resulting in prostitution. It is a manifestation of one of the most flagrant forms of violence against human beings. (3) the Protocol against the Illicit Manufacturing of and Trafficking in Firearms. we have signed the following: the Convention on the Elimination of all Forms of Discrimination Against Women. They only address to one or some elements of trafficking independent of their results or consequence. harbouring or receipt of persons. transportation. Mr. her arrest in flagrante delicto is valid.61 Senator Luisa Ejercito Estrada explained:chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary At present. of the abuse of power or of a position of vulnerability or of the giving or receiving of payments or benefits to achieve the consent of a person having control over another person. 9208. ratification and accession” 54 on November 15.51 Likewise.AGRARIAN LAW AND SOCIAL LEGISLATION FULL CASES BATCH 1 JULY 2. . Suppress and Punish Trafficking in Persons. Accused further argues that under the subjective test.. 9208 The United Nations Convention against Transnational Organized Crime (UN CTOC) was “adopted and opened for signature. the relevant laws to the trafficking issue are the Revised Penal Code. 2001. 2003. forced labor. prostitution. These laws do not respond to the issue of recruiting. 8239 or the Philippine Passport Act. Background of Republic Act No. 2003. she should be acquitted because the prosecution did not present evidence that would prove she had a history of engaging in human trafficking or any other offense. Republic Act No. coercion.

66 AAA also stated that she agreed to work as a prostitute because she needed money. slavery. adoption or receipt of a child for the purpose of exploitation or when the adoption is induced by any form of consideration for exploitative purposes shall also be considered as ‘trafficking in persons’ even if it does not involve any of the means set forth in the preceding paragraph. or other forms of coercion. or receive a person by any means. To recruit. deception. or other forms of coercion. otherwise known as the “Expanded Anti-Trafficking in Persons Act of 2012. or. providing. deception. harboring or receipt of a child for the purpose of exploitation shall also be considered as “trafficking in persons” even if it does not involve any of the means set forth in the preceding paragraph. harboring. harboring. offering. involuntary servitude or debt bondage. hiring. servitude or the removal or sale of organs” (Emphasis supplied) The Court of Appeals found that AAA and BBB were recruited by accused when their services were peddled to the police who acted as decoys. the giving or receiving of payments or benefits to achieve the consent of a person having control over another person” (3) The purpose of trafficking includes “the exploitation or the prostitution of others or other forms of sexual exploitation. or. slavery. abusive. or receipt of persons with or without the victim’s consent or knowledge. involuntary servitude or debt bondage. maintaining. within or across national borders. otherwise known as the “Inter-Country Adoption Act of 1995” and said adoption is for the purpose of prostitution. 9208 is hereby amended to read as follows: Accused claims that AAA admitted engaging in prostitution even before May 2. 3. the giving or receiving of payments or benefits to achieve the consent of a person having control over another person for the purpose of exploitation which includes at a minimum. harbor. forced labor. abuse of power or of position. 4. forced labor or services. forced labor or services. as proven by the testimonies of the witnesses. fraud. When the trafficked person is a child. or deceptive means. which states:chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary SEC. 2013. slavery. the giving or receiving of payments or benefits to achieve the consent of a person having control over another.”63 On January 28. She concludes that AAA was predisposed to having sex with “customers” for money. slavery. 9208. transport. slavery.” (2) The means used include “by means of threat. or use of force. fraud. or deceptive means employed by perpetrators of human trafficking. a. transportation. taking advantage of the vulnerability of the person. “The recruitment. 68 Trafficking in Persons . Accused was charged under Section 4(a). Qualified Trafficking in Persons. abduction.71 Even without the use of coercive. to commit any of the following acts. provide. a minor’s consent is not given out of his or her own free will. 9208 was amended by Republic Act No. The recruitment transportation. b. – As used in this Act: “(a) Trafficking in Persons – refers to the recruitment. (Emphasis supplied) Under Republic Act No. or other forms of coercion.70(Emphasis supplied) The victim’s consent is rendered meaningless due to the coercive. abuse of power or of position. the exploitation or the prostitution of others or other forms of sexual exploitation. pornography. or.refers to the recruitment. harboring. SEC. 8043. abduction. or use of force. 2015 II. maintaining. or. “SEC. 10364. 1036464 was approved. the exploitation or the prostitution of others or other forms of sexual exploitation. 2008. hiring. abuse of power or of position. the giving or receiving of payments or benefits to achieve the consent of a person having control over another person for the purpose of exploitation which includes at a minimum. within or across national borders. pornography. 9208 further enumerates the instances when the crime of trafficking in persons is qualified. transfer. transportation. offering. within or across national borders by means of threat. 6. transfer. fraud. . abduction. taking advantage of the vulnerability of the persons. deception. transfer or harbouring. taking advantage of the vulnerability of the person. including those done under the pretext of domestic or overseas employment or training or apprenticeship. transportation.72 Republic Act No.69 For liability under our law. abduction. abuse of power or of position. fraud. providing. servitude or the removal or sale of organs. or other forms of coercion. or receipt of persons with or without the victim’s consent or knowledge. When the adoption is effected through Republic Act No.” Section 3(a) of Republic Act No. for the purpose of prostitution. this argument is irrelevant. thus:chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary (1) The act of “recruitment.” (2) The means used which include “threat or use of force. 9208. transfer.AGRARIAN LAW AND SOCIAL LEGISLATION FULL CASES BATCH 1 JULY 2. or receipt of persons with or without the victim's consent or knowledge. taking advantage of the vulnerability of the person. 9208 enumerates the different acts of trafficking in persons. slavery. — As used in this Act: a. As defined under Section 3(a) of Republic Act No.67Accused took advantage of AAA’s vulnerability as a child and as one who need money. 3. Elements of trafficking in persons III. — It shall be unlawful for any person. Republic Act No. forced labor. transfer. transportation. Section 4 of Republic Act No.65 AAA was a child at the time that accused peddled her services. transfer or harboring. Acts of Trafficking in Persons. forced labor or services. 3. obtaining. 9208. 10364 as follows:chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary SEC. — The following are considered as qualified trafficking: a.Knowledge or consent of the minor is not a defense under Republic Act No. obtaining. servitude or the removal or sale of organs. the elements of trafficking in persons have been expanded to include the following acts:chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary (1) The act of “recruitment. forced labor or services. sexual exploitation. natural or judicial. trafficking in persons can still be committed even if the victim gives consent. transportation. deception. sexual exploitation. Definition of Terms. abusive. servitude or the removal or sale of organs. within or across national borders by means of threat or use of force. Section 3 of Republic Act No. Definition of Terms. The elements of trafficking in persons can be derived from its definition under Section 3(a) of Republic Act No. or receipt of persons with or without the victim’s consent or knowledge. transfer. SEC. and (3) The purpose of trafficking is exploitation which includes “exploitation or the prostitution of others or other forms of sexual exploitation.

United States to determine whether entrapment actually occurred. She denied being a pimp and claimed that she earned her living as a laundrywoman.74 Based on the definition of trafficking in persons and the enumeration of acts of trafficking in persons. other than one who is ready and willing. this court has discussed the difference between entrapment and instigation. The difference in the nature of the two lies in the origin of the criminal intent. On this argument. As testified by PO1 Veloso and PO1 Luardo. then . . Validity of the entrapment operation In People v. In entrapment. the law officer conceives the commission of the crime and suggests to the accused who adopts the idea and carries it into execution. the entrapment defense will fail even if a police agent used an unduly persuasive inducement. or in large scale. sibling. neglect. however. The inquiry is focused on the inducements used by government agents. For the goal of the defense is to deter unlawful police conduct. courts usually apply the objective test in determining the whether there was an entrapment operation or an instigation. his state of mind and inclination before his initial exposure to government agents. AAA testified as to how accused solicited her services for the customers waiting at Queensland Motel.78 However.82 This shows that accused was predisposed to commit the offense because she initiated the transaction. The prosecution was able to prove beyond reasonable doubt that accused committed the offense of trafficking in persons. She pointed out that:chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary Applying the “subjective ” test it is worth invoking that accused-appellant procures income from being a laundry woman. Trafficking is deemed committed by a syndicate if carried out by a group of three (3) or more persons conspiring or confederating with one another.80 this court explained that:chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary 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. AAA also testified that she was only 17 years old when accused peddled her. As held by the trial court:chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary [T]he act of “sexual intercourse” need not have been consummated for the mere “transaction” i. individually or as a group. the use of the objective test should not preclude courts from also applying the subjective test.1. When the crime is committed by a syndicate. When by reason or on occasion of the act of trafficking in persons. to commit the offense. accused performed all the elements in the commission of the offense when she peddled AAA and BBB and offered their services to decoys PO1 Veloso and PO1 Luardo in exchange for money.75 IV. The predisposition test emphasizes the accused's propensity to commit the offense rather than the officer's misconduct and reflects an attempt to draw a line between a “trap for the unwary innocent and the trap for the unwary criminal. (Emphasis supplied. Here. d.refers to a person below eighteen (18) years of age or one who is over eighteen (18) but is unable to fully take care of or protect himself/herself from abuse. qualified by the fact that one of the victims was a child. etc. for purposes of this test. .79 (Citations omitted) Accused further argued that the police should have conducted a prior surveillance before the entrapment operation. InChang v. 1991. 2015 c.00 already consummated the said act. his past offenses. Child . 9208 defines “child” as:chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary SEC. guardian or a person who exercise authority over the trafficked person or when the offense is committed by a public officer or employee.e. f. (Emphasis supplied)73 Section 3 (b) of Republic Act No. . 3.81 Accused contends that using the subjective test. In instigation. The offense was also qualified because the trafficked persons were minors. When the offender is an ascendant. Definition of Terms. The idea and the resolve to commit the crime comes from him. we agree with the finding of the Court of Appeals:chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary [I]t was the accused-appellant who commenced the transaction with PO1 Luardo and PO1 Veloso by calling their attention on whether they wanted girls for that evening. It is deemed committed in large scale if committed against three (3) or more persons. She is not even familiar to the team who had has [sic] been apprehending human traffickers for quite some time. All relevant facts such as the accused's mental and character traits. and when the officers responded. have adopted the “objective” test. .. People. it is presumed that a law-abiding person would normally resist the temptation to commit a crime that is presented by the simple opportunity to act unlawfully. — As used in this Act: b. on police conduct. Her certificate of live birth was presented as evidence to show that she was born on January 27. cruelty. are considered to assess his state of mind before the crime. The prosecution had not shown any proof evidencing accused-appellant’s history in human trafficking or engagement in any offense. and g.76 this court discussed the objective test and the subjective test to determine whether there was a valid entrapment operation:chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary . There is instigation when the accused is induced to commit the crime. his eagerness in committing the crime. e. American federal courts and a majority of state courts use the “subjective” or “origin of intent” test laid down in Sorrells v. parent. or discrimination because of a physical or mental disability or condition. the court considers the nature of the police activity involved and the propriety of police conduct. citations omitted)77 Accused argued that in our jurisprudence. becomes insane. When the offender is a member of the military or law enforcement agencies. exploitation. The focus of the inquiry is on the accused's predisposition to commit the offense charged. When the trafficked person is recruited to engage in prostitution with any member of the military or law enforcement agencies. the offended party dies. not on the accused and his predisposition to commit the crime. the mens reaoriginates from the mind of the criminal.000. Time and again. accused called out their attention by saying “Chicks mo dong?” If accused had no predisposition to commit the offense. it was the accused-appellant who told them to wait while she would fetch the girls for their perusal. The test of entrapment is whether the conduct of the law enforcement agent was likely to induce a normally law-abiding person. Here. that ‘solicitation’ for sex and the handing over of the “bust money” of Php. Some states. his reputation. activities. Doria.” If the accused was found to have been ready and willing to commit the offense at any favorable opportunity.AGRARIAN LAW AND SOCIAL LEGISLATION FULL CASES BATCH 1 JULY 2. suffers mutilation or is afflicted with Human Immunodeficiency Virus (HIV) or the Acquired Immune Deficiency Syndrome (AIDS). . she was clearly instigated by the police to commit the offense.

Thus. 2013. moral shock. It serves as a foundation for two human beings to face life’s joys and challenges while continually growing together with many shared experiences. When accused was arrested. 34. Lalli90 where this court held that:chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary The payment of P500. too.0089 to P500. her alibi was unsubstantiated and cannot be given credence.000. We contribute to a commitment to finally stamp out slavery and human trafficking. it is worse. premises considered. — The following penalties and sanctions are hereby established for the offenses enumerated in this Act: c.000. To be trafficked as a prostitute without one’s consent and to be sexually violated four to five times a day by different strangers is horrendous and atrocious. qualified by Section 6(a) of Republic Act No.91 Human trafficking indicts the society that tolerates the kind of poverty and its accompanying desperation that compels our women to endure indignities. By fulfilling our duties. 29.000. for as long as the rights of the accused have not been violated in the process. These amounts are in accordance with the ruling in People v. 27.000. and not the last resort taken just to survive. finding accused Shirley A. and 35. They. The police officers may decide that time is of the essence and dispense with the need for prior surveillance.88 (Citations omitted) This flexibility is even more important in cases involving trafficking of persons.00) but not more than Five million pesos (P5. Since the crime of Trafficking in Persons was aggravated. 2219.00. WHEREFORE. It reflects the weaknesses of that society even as it convicts those who deviantly thrive in such hopelessness.000 as moral damages and P100.000. Casio guilty beyond reasonable doubt of violating Section 4(a). abduction. 2015 she most likely would not have asked PO1 Veloso and PO1 Luardo if they wanted girls. mental anguish. The evidence and the law compel us to affirm the conviction of accused in this case.00. being committed by a syndicate. Imposition of fine and award of damages The Court of Appeals properly imposed the amount of P2. need to be shown that in spite of what their lives have been. 26.85 (9) Acts mentioned in Article 309.. wounded feelings. Section 10 (b) of Republic Act No.000 as exemplary damages for the crime of Trafficking in Persons as a Prostitute finds basis in Article 2219 of the Civil Code. we AFFIRM the decision of the Court of Appeals dated June 27. Penalties and Sanctions. But this is not all that we have done. In fact. Flexibility is a trait of good police work. (2) Quasi-delicts causing physical injuries.000. which states:chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary Art. too. We should continue to strive for the best of our world. Any person found guilty of qualified trafficking under Section 6 shall suffer the penalty of life imprisonment and a fine of not less than Two million pesos (P2. 4103 . with the MODIFICATION that accused-appellant shall not be eligible for parole under Act No. or other lascivious acts. the award of exemplary damages is likewise justified. and sentencing her to suffer the penalty of life imprisonment and a fine of P2.00).00. we modify by raising the award of moral damages from P150.000. or other lascivious acts. rape. abduction. 28. to be trafficked. With regard to the lack of prior surveillance. we affirm the text and spirit of our laws. the Court of Appeals noted that accused never presented Gingging in court.000. therefore. fright. where our choices of human intimacies are real choices. there is still much good in our world. Moral damages may be recovered in the following and analogous cases: (1) A criminal offense resulting in physical injuries. The quality of our human relationships defines the world that we create also for others. 10. rape. V. (3) Seduction. The entrapment would still be valid using the objective test. (5) Illegal or arbitrary detention or arrest. Padua87 this court underscored the value of flexibility in police operations:chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary A prior surveillance is not a prerequisite for the validity of an entrapment or buy-bust operation.. On accused’s alibi that she was merely out to buy her supper that night. However. we also express the hope that our people and our government unite against everything inhuman. Human intimacies enhance our best and closest relationships. The urgency of rescuing the victims may at times require immediate but deliberate action on the part of the law enforcers. We also award exemplary damages in the amount of P100. The criminal case of Trafficking in Persons as a Prostitute is an analogous case to the crimes of seduction.00. the courts will not pass on the wisdom thereof. (4) Adultery or concubinage. Jakosalem Street in Barangay Kamagayan. the conduct of which has no rigid or textbook method. (6) Illegal search.86 In People v. . 9208 provides that:chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary SEC. They.AGRARIAN LAW AND SOCIAL LEGISLATION FULL CASES BATCH 1 JULY 2. prior surveillance is not a condition for an entrapment operation’s validity. 30. Minors should spend their adolescence moulding their character in environments free of the vilest motives and the worse of other human beings. The police merely proceeded to D.000. Regardless of the willingness of AAA and BBB. deserve to be rescued. However the police carry out its entrapment operations. There is no doubt that Lolita experienced physical suffering. serious anxiety. and social humiliation when she was trafficked as a prostitute in Malaysia.83 The marked money retrieved from her was recorded in the police blotter prior to the entrapment operation and was presented in court as evidence. There was no illicit inducement on the part of the police for the accused to commit the crime. (8) Malicious prosecution. slander or any other form of defamation. 32. she was informed of her constitutional rights.000.000.. besmirched reputation. It was accused who asked them whether they wanted girls.84 (7) Libel. 9208. (10) Acts and actions referred to in Articles 21. There are more AAA’s and BBBs out there.

9346.000.AGRARIAN LAW AND SOCIAL LEGISLATION FULL CASES BATCH 1 JULY 2.92 (1) P500. and The award of damages is likewise MODIFIED as follows: (2) P100. Accused is ordered to pay each of the private complainants: .00 as moral damages.000. 2015 (Indeterminate Sentence Law) in accordance with Section 3 of Republic Act No.00 as exemplary damages.