[G.R No. 101813.

October 28, 2020]

AAA, petitioner v. BBB, respondent

DECISION

FACTUAL ANTECEDENTS

This case arose from a complaint filed by petitioner AAA against BBB. In her
Complaint-Affidavit dated August 4, 2019, AAA, a bank teller from PBB Bank, claims that on
the day of the incident, she was walking down a road to go to work when respondent BBB
suddenly showed up and drove by her very slowly and gave her a look in a malicious way. She
tried to ignore the respondent however, respondent BBB suddenly stopped his car, got out, and
watched her until she was out of sight. Petitioner AAA claims that she does not know BBB
personally, but she has seen him before and knows where BBB works. She was badly frightened
and traumatized by the experience, hence this complaint.

In his Counter-Affidavit/Answer, respondent alleged that he was only trying to make

friends with petitioner AAA because he is friends with her co-workers. He also argues that he
only wants to give petitioner to give her a ride on the way to work. He prays for the complaint
to be dismissed.

After hearing both sides of petitioner and respondent, we now go solve the issue of
whether respondent BBB is criminally liable. The petitioner claims that she was badly
frightened and traumatized by the leering of respondent BBB. The act of respondent BBB may
fall into Article 287-A of the Revised Penal Code which states that:
 “Any person who commits a course of conduct directed at a
specific person that causes substantial emotional distress in
such a person and serves no legitimate purpose shall suffer
the penalty of arresto mayor in its minimum period or a fine
ranging from 500 pesos to 5,000 pesos, or both.”

Although the Revised Penal Coded did not define unjust vexation, in the case of Baleros v.
People1, the Supreme Court defined unjust vexation as any human conduct without violence,
that unjustly annoys an innocent person. The test is “whether the offender’s act causes
annoyance, irritation, torment, distress or disturbance to the mind of the person to whom it is
directed.” In the case at bar, it is apparent that when the respondent slowly drove by the
petitioner, leered at her, got off the car and watched her until she was out of sight, these created
danger in the mind of the petitioner.

Respondent may also be liable for violating Republic Act No. 113131 2, otherwise known as the
Safe Spaces Act. Under Republic Act No. 11313, its goal is to provide “equality, security and
safety not only in private, but also on the streets, public spaces, online, workplaces and
educational and training institutions” to both men and women. As stated by the petitioner, the
incident happened on a road in a broad daylight when she was on her way to work. Thus,
paragraph (g) of Section 3 states that:

(g) Public spaces refer to streets and alleys, public parks,

schools, buildings, malls, bars, restaurants, transportation
terminals, public markets, spaces used as evacuation centers,
government offices, public utility vehicles as well as private
vehicles covered by app-based transport network services and
other recreational spaces such as, but not limited to, cinema
halls, theaters and spas; (Emphasis given)

Sexual harassment in streets and public spaces are specifically provided under Section 11
paragraph (a) , Article I of the Republic Act No. 11313 which also provides for its penalty.
1
Baleros v. People, G.R. No. 138033
2
Republic Act No. 11313, Safe Spaces Act 2019
 SECTION 11. Specific Acts and Penalties for Gender-Based
Sexual Harassment in Streets and Public Spaces. — The
following acts are unlawful and shall be penalized as follows:

(a) For acts such as cursing, wolf-whistling, catcalling,

leering and intrusive gazing, taunting, cursing,
unwanted invitations, misogynistic, transphobic,
homophobic, and sexist slurs, persistent unwanted
comments on one's appearance, relentless requests for
one's personal details such as name, contact and social
media details or destination, the use of words, gestures or
actions that ridicule on the basis of sex, gender or sexual
orientation, identity and/or expression including sexist,
homophobic, and transphobic statements and slurs, the
persistent telling of sexual jokes, use of sexual names,
comments and demands, and any statement that has made
an invasion on a person's personal space or threatens the
person's sense of personal safety —

With the foregoing, we are of the opinion that Republic Act No. 11313 is more applicable in the
case at bar. Respondent should be responsible and liable for the dangers he created in the mind of
the petitioner and for the emotional distress and disturbance she has suffered. No one should feel
unsafe outside of their houses while going to school or to work in a broad daylight, nor should
anyone be harassed by some lunatic and pervert person.

WHEREFORE, judgment is hereby rendered finding respondent BBB guilty for violating
Republic Act No. 11313 and is hereby sentenced to suffer the penalty a fine of One thousand
pesos (₱1,000.00) and community service of twelve (12) hours inclusive of attendance to a
Gender Sensitivity Seminar to be conducted by the PNP in coordination with the LGU and the
PCW.

SO ORDERED.