acop v guingona
An investigation by a
f: 11 suspected members of kuratong baleleng
gang were killed in an alleged shootout with a
task force from the pnp. 2 members of that task
force(SPO2s) then made public disclosure that
no such shootout occured and the 11 people
were instead summarily executed. Senate then
conducted hearings regarding this incident and
thus recommended the 2 whistleblowers to be
admitted to the witness protection program
under RA 6981.
Now come petitioners(those among implicated
by the whistleblowers) who allege that those 2
should not be admitted by virtue of sec.3(d) of
RA 6981:
Sec. 3. Admission into the Program. - Any
person who has witnessed or has knowledge or
information on the commission of a crime and
has testified or is testifying or about to testify
before any judicial or quasi-judicial body, or
before any investigating authority, may be
admitted into the Program: Provided, That:
xxx
(d) he is not a law enforcement officer, even if
he would be testifying against the other law
enforcement officers. In such a case, only the
immediate members of his family may avail
themselves of the protection provided for
under this Act.
i: WON the WhistleBs are qualified to be
admitted under RA 6981
h: Yes, qualified. It is true that the proviso in
Section 3(d) disqualifies law enforcement
officers from being admitted into the Program
when they "testify before any judicial or quasi-
judicial body, or before any investigating
authority." This is the general rule. However,
Section 4 provides for a specific and separate
situation where a witness testifies before a
legislative investigation.
legislative committee does not fall under the
category of "any investigating authority"
referred to in Section 3.
Sec. 4. Witness in Legislative Investigations. - In
case of legislative investigations in aid of
legislation, a witness, with his express consent,
may be admitted into the Program upon the
recommendation of the legislative committee
where his testimony is needed when in its
judgment there is pressing necessity therefor:
Provided, That such recommendation is
approved by the President of the Senate or the
Speaker of the House of Representatives, as the
case may be.
Petition denied
-----------------------------------------------------------
lamsis v sales
f: Lamsis a janitress at an rtc in benguet. while
cleaning someone called her from behind. when
she turned around she saw Sales, the process
server for the rtc, walking towards her while
holding his private organ and showing it to her.
Lamsis said bastos then ran. a case was then
filed against sales for allegedly violating ra 7877
i: guilty under ra 7877?
h: no. under sec.3 ra 7877 one of the key
elements to be held liable under ra 7877 is
"having authority, influence or moral
ascendancy over another in a work or training
or education environment"
(relevant proviso)
SECTION 3. Work, Education or Training -
Related, Sexual Harassment Defined. - Work,
education or training-related sexual
harassment is committed by an employer,
employee, manager, supervisor, agent of the
employer, teacher, instructor, professor, coach,
trainor, or any other person who, having
authority, influence or moral ascendancy over
another in a work or training or education
environment, demands, requests or otherwise
requires any sexual favor from the other,
regardless of whether the demand, request or
requirement for submission is accepted by the
object of said Act.
in this case, Sales is just a process server thus
cannot pressure lamsis. sales was instead found
guilty of disgraceful and immoral conduct
--------------------------------------------------------
ATTY. JACINTO C. GONZALES, Petitioner, v.
MAILA CLEMEN F. SERRANO, Respondent.
G.R. No. 175433, March 11, 2015
Note: This case arose from an administrative
complaint filed by Atty. Maila Clemen F. Serrano
(respondent) against her direct superior, Atty.
Jacinto C. Gonzales (petitioner), Chief, Legal
Division of the Philippine Racing Commission
(PHILRACOM), for grave misconduct, sexual
harassment and acts of lasciviousness
Forcibly kissed Atty. Maila Clemen F. Serrano
who was his subordinate.
Facts:
Respondent alleged that on November 23,
2000, petitioner invited her, along with her
officemates, Administrative Officer V Eva
Bataller, Atty. III Eugene Juanson, and
Stenographer II Roman Vidal, to eat lunch at
Buddy’s Restaurant, at J.P. Rizal St., Makati City.
While seated at the table waiting for their food
to be served, petitioner suddenly took hold of
respondent’s face and forcefully kissed her lips
in the presence of Eva, Eugene, Roman and
other customers. Respondent tried to ward off
petitioner by pulling her head away from him,
but he persisted on kissing her against her will.
She was so shocked, terrified, and humiliated
that she could hardly talk and move. She
wanted to cry, but held her tears for fear of
further embarrassment.
Respondent also alleged that prior to that
“kissing” incident, petitioner had already
degraded her person on four (4) separate
occasions, namely: (1) on the very first day she
met him in the office, he offered to purchase
her a cell phone so that he can text her, which
offer she straightforwardly refused; (2) on that
same day, he wanted her to join him in his car
in going home, which she likewise refused; (3) a
week later, he asked her to eat out for lunch;
again, she refused; and (4) on August 23, 2000,
after her sick leave from office, petitioner called
her in his office and scolded her.
Issue: whether or not ATTY. JACINTO C.
GONZALES committed sexual harassment and
acts of lasciviousness.
Held: In this case, the Court finds the element of
corruption present. As correctly pointed out by
the CA, petitioner used his position and
authority as Head of the Legal Division of
PHILRACOM, as well as his moral ascendancy, to
elicit sexual favors and to indulge in sexually
malicious acts from his respondent, his female
subordinate.29 As to petitioner’s sole defense
that he merely gave respondent an innocent
birthday greeting kiss, the Court is unconvinced
in view of the Joint Affidavit of their officemates
attesting that he forcibly kissed her on the lips.
The act of grabbing and attempting to kiss her
without her consent was an unmistakable
manifestation of his intention to violate laws
that specifically prohibited sexual harassment in
the work environment. Assuming arguendo that
respondent never intended to violate RA 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.