“Republic Act No. 7877, otherwise known as the Anti-Sexual Harassment Act of 1995, was the first criminal statute enacted in the Philippines to penalize sexual harassment. It was adopted pursuant to the declared policy that “the State shall value the dignity of every individual, enhance the development of its human resources, guarantee full respect for human rights, and uphold the dignity of workers, employees, applicants for employment, students or those undergoing training, instruction or education.”[1]
Rationale for criminalization of sexual harassment. – “In the community of nations, there was a time when discrimination was institutionalized through the legalization of now prohibited practices.1âшphi1 Indeed, even within this century, persons were discriminated against merely because of gender, creed or the color of their skin, to the extent that the validity of human beings being treated as mere chattel was judicially upheld in other jurisdictions. But in humanity’s march towards a more refined sense of civilization, the law has stepped in and seen it fit to condemn this type of conduct for, at bottom, history reveals that the moving force of civilization has been to realize and secure a more humane existence. Ultimately, this is what humanity as a whole seeks to attain as we strive for a better quality of life or higher standard of living. Thus, in our nations very recent history, the people have spoken, through Congress, to deem conduct constitutive of sexual harassment or hazing, acts previously considered harmless by custom, as criminal.”[2]
“Sexual harassment is an imposition of misplaced “superiority” which is enough to dampen an employee’s spirit and her capacity for advancement. It affects her sense of judgment; it changes her life.”[3]
Reduction of penalty, when warranted. – “Guided by the foregoing jurisprudence, the Court agrees with the CA that petitioner should be held liable for grave misconduct, but holds that a reduction of the penalty from dismissal from service to a mere suspension of six (6) months without pay, is in order. Like in Veloso v. Caminade,35 there is only one incident of sexual harassment in this case where petitioner forcibly kissed respondent who was his subordinate. If a six (6)-month suspension can be meted to a judge from whom the expected standard of morality is more exacting, it is logical that a similar penalty should be meted to petitioner.”[4]
Appreciation of mitigating and aggravating circumstances. – The Court notes that the Deputy Overall Ombudsman was correct in appreciating the following mitigating circumstances in determining the imposable penalty, to wit: (1) petitioner’s weak physical condition and (2) commission of the offense in a public place and in the presence of their office mates. However, the said Ombudsman gravely erred in failing to consider the following aggravating circumstances: (1) taking undue advantage of official position; (2) taking undue advantage of subordinate; and (3) education. As the Head of the Legal Department of PHILRACOM and the direct superior of respondent, petitioner’s act of forcibly kissing her lips and saying “Ang sarap pala ng labi ni Maila x x x” in front of their office mates, smacks of bad faith, abuse of official position, flagrant disregard of the anti-sexual harassment law,38 and willful violation of the Code of Professional Responsibility.39 Under Section 54 (d) of the URACCS,40 where more aggravating circumstances are present than mitigating ones, the maximum penalty shall be imposed. Hence, the Court imposes the penalty of suspension of six (6) months without pay. [5](Citations omitted)
Head of office or agency is tasked to create the CODI when none is existing or has been constituted. “The Rules on Sexual Harassment Cases is categorical. The head office or agency is the entity tasked to create the CODI when none is existing or has been constituted. In this case, the head office or agency responsible for creating a CODI is the office of the city mayor, headed by the mayor himself, Gatchalian, which he did. Gatchalian issued EO 2012-00676 creating the City Committee on Decorum and Investigation on Sexual Harassment Cases of the City Government of Valenzuela. The following day, the CODI adopted Resolution No. 2012-00177 which, among others, divided the CODI into two groups: (1) CODI-I, to conduct preliminary investigation; and (2) CODI-II, to conduct formal hearing. Both CODI-I and CODI-II found Urrutia liable for sexual harassment classified as a grave offense under the Rules on Sexual Harassment Cases. They issued a formal charge and preventive suspension order against Urrutia.”[6]
Three-fold liability in sexual harassment. – “At the core of sexual harassment in the workplace, as penalized by Republic Act No. 7877, otherwise known as the Anti-Sexual Harassment Act of 1995, is abuse of power by a superior over a subordinate. Sexual harassment engenders three-fold liability: criminal, to address the wrong committed against society itself; civil, to address the private wrong against the offended party; and administrative, to protect the public service.Courts and administrative bodies should not hesitate to penalize insidious acts of sexual harassment, especially when committed by high-ranking public officers.”[7]
Elements of sexual harassment.– “Sexual harassment as defined and penalized under Republic Act No. 7877 requires three elements for an accused to be convicted: (1) that the employer, employee, manager, supervisor, agent of the employer, teacher, instructor, professor, coach, trainor, or any other person has authority, influence, or moral-ascendancy over another; (2) the authority, influence, or moral ascendancy exists in a work-related, training-related, or education-related environment, and (3) the employer, employee, manager, supervisor, agent of the employer, teacher, instructor, professor, coach, trainor, or any other person who has authority, influence, or moral-ascendancy over another makes a demand, request, or requirement of a sexual favor”[8]
Element of demand or request for sexual favor. – “Grabbing the hand, kissing, engaging in improper conversations, touching the thigh, giving gifts, telling the victim “she was the kind of girl he realy wants; asking her out on dates, and sending her text and Winpo messages telling her that he missed her, all these acts undoubtedly amount to a request for sexual favors.”[9]
“It is true that this provision calls for a “demand, request or requirement of a sexual favor.” But it is not necessary that the demand, request or requirement of a sexual favor be articulated in a categorical oral or written statement. It may be discerned, with equal certitude, from the acts of the offender. Holding and squeezing Domingo’s shoulders, running his fingers across her neck and tickling her ear, having inappropriate conversations with her, giving her money allegedly for school expenses with a promise of future privileges, and making statements with unmistakable sexual overtones – all these acts of Rayala resound with deafening clarity the unspoken request for a sexual favor.[10]
Intent is immaterial in sexual harassment. – Since Republic Act No. 7877 is a special criminal statute, the offense of sexual harassment is malum prohibitum. Thus, in prosecuting an offender for sexual harassment, intent is immaterial. Mere commission is sufficient to warrant a conviction.[11]
“Assuming arguendo that respondent never intended to violate [Republic Act No.] 7877, his attempt to kiss petitioner was a flagrant disregard of a customary rule that had existed since time immemorial — that intimate physical contact between individuals must be consensual. Respondent’s defiance of custom and lack of respect for the opposite sex were more appalling because he was a married man. Respondent’s act showed a low regard for women and disrespect for petitioner’s honor and dignity.”[12]
“R.A. No. 7877 does not require that the victim had acceded to the sexual desires of the abuser. Further, it is not necessary that a demand or request for sexual favor is articulated. In addition, sexual harassment is also committed in an educational environment when the sexual advances result in an intimidating, hostile or offensive environment, In short, it is not necessary that there was an offer for sex for there to be sexual harassment as a superior’s conduct with sexual underpinnings, which offends the victim or creates a hostile environment would suffice.”[13] (Citations omitted)
Safe Spaces Act of 2019 does not undo or abandon definition of sexual harassment. – The Safe Spaces Act does not undo or abandon the definition of sexual harassment under the Anti-Sexual Harassment Law of 1995. The gravamen of the offenses punished under the Safe Spaces Act is the act of sexually harassing a person on the basis of the his/her sexual orientation, gender identity and/or expression, while that of the offense punished under the Anti-Sexual Harassment Act of 1995 is abuse of one’s authority, influence or moral ascendancy so as to enable the sexual harassment of a subordinate.[14]
Power over a subordinate. – “At the core of sexual harassment in the workplace is power exercised by a superior over a subordinate. The power emanates from how the superior can remove or disadvantage the subordinate should the latter refuse the superior’s sexual advances.Thus, sexual harassment is committed when the sexual favor is made as a condition in the hiring of the victim or the grant of benefits thereto; or when the sexual act results in an intimidating, hostile, or offensive environment for the employee.” [15](Citations omitted)
As City Health Officer, an accused act of enticing a complainant for a job in a family planning project where he then committed his dastardly acts in the guise of research, on the complainant, a new graduate who enlisted his help in securing employment, is liable for sexual harassment.[16]
[1] Escandor v. People, G.R. No, 211962, July 6, 2020
[2] Vedana v. Judge Valencia, 356 Phil. 317, cited in Escandor v. People, G.R. No, 211962, July 6, 2020
[3] Domingo v. Rayala, G.R. No. 155831, February 18, 2008
[4] Gonzales v. Serrano, G.R. No. 175433, March 11, 2015
[5] Gonzales v. Serrano, G.R. No. 175433, March 11, 2015
[6] Gatchalian v. Urrutia, G.R. No. 223595, March 16, 2022
[7] Escandor v. People, G.R. No, 211962, July 6, 2020
[8] Escandor v. People, G.R. No, 211962, July 6, 2020
[9] Escandor v. People, G.R. No, 211962, July 6, 2020
[10] Domingo v. Rayala, G.R. No. 155831, February 15, 2008
[11] Escandor v. People, G.R. No, 211962, July 6, 2020
[12] Narvasa v. Sanchez, 630 Phil. 577, cited in Escandor v. People, G.R. No, 211962, July 6, 2020
[13] Re:Anonymous Complaint against Atty. Cresencio Co Untian Jr., A.C. No. 5900. April 10, 2019
[14] Escandor v. People, G.R. No, 211962, July 6, 2020
[15] Escandor v. People, G.R. No, 211962, July 6, 2020
[16] Jacutin v. People, G.R. No. 140604, March 6, 2002