In this case, celebrity Hayden Kho Jr.

was charged with violating the Anti-Violence

Against Women and their Children Act of 2004 due to his involvement in the viral
spread of sex tapes featuring him and actress Katrina Halili. The Pasig Regional Trial
Court Branch 159 dismissed the case against Kho, citing "insufficiency of evidence"
for the charges.

There were two main aspects to the case against Kho:

1. Taking a video without consent: Kho was accused of recording a sexual encounter
with Katrina Halili without her knowledge and consent, leading to psychological and
emotional distress for Halili.

2. Uploading the sex video online: Kho was also accused of uploading the sex video
on the internet, causing mental and emotional distress, as well as humiliation for
Halili.

Kho's legal counsel argued that the court found that the video camera used to record
the encounter was in an open and unconcealed place, making it difficult for Halili to
be unaware of the video being taken. The court also noted that the prosecution failed
to present evidence supporting the charge of illegally uploading the videos. Kho's
legal team emphasized that the act of taking a sex video becomes a crime only if it
"alarms or causes substantial emotional or psychological distress to the woman."

Interestingly, Kho's legal team pointed out that the expert witnesses from the
prosecution, including an NBI psychologist and psychiatrist, testified that the primary
cause of Halili's psychological distress was the uploading of the video, not the act of
recording it.

On the other side, Halili's legal counsel expressed their intention to file an appeal
against the court's decision. Senator Bong Revilla, who had supported Halili's case in
Congress, expressed surprise at the court's decision, stating that it contradicted both
the clear conclusion of the Senate investigation and the public's opinion.

Overall, the case revolved around allegations of privacy violation, emotional distress,
and the interpretation of the law related to the Anti-Violence Against Women and
their Children Act. The court's decision was based on the insufficiency of evidence
and the specific circumstances surrounding the recording and uploading of the sex
tapes.

In the case involving Katrina Halili and Dr. Hayden Kho, Dr. Kho couldn't be held
criminally liable because there was no existing law at the time that prohibited the
recording of sexual activities. This controversy sparked public outrage, leading the
Senate to conduct an inquiry. The Senate aimed to pass new legislation with severe
penalties for video voyeurs to prevent future scandals like Hayden Kho's.

Before the Anti-Photo and Video Voyeurism Act of 2009 (RA 9995), individuals who
recorded sexual activities, even with the consent of the other party, faced no legal
consequences. Similarly, possessing such explicit materials was not punishable by
law. The enactment of RA 9995 was a response to this legal gap, aiming to prevent
future incidents like the Hayden Kho scandal and cases where one party would
blackmail another with scandalous images.