Undue liberties

An employer, employee, manager, supervisor, agent of the employer, teacher, instructor, professor, coach, trainor or any other person having authority, influence or moral ascendancy   over another in a work or training or education environment who demands, requests or otherwise requires any sexual favor from another in exchange also for some favors, may now be held criminally liable for sexual harassment, pursuant to R.A. 7877 otherwise known as the Anti-Sexual Harassment Act of 1995. This case gives us an example of how sexual harassment is committed.

This is the case of May, a nursing graduate looking for a job. For this purpose, her father Rod accompanied and introduced her to his childhood friend, Doc Glen, the city health officer in their place. But finding no suitable opening in his office, Doc Glen offered May another job in a family planning project for the city where there is a vacancy and that if she is interested he would interview her alone another day.

When May returned to Doc Glen’s office, the latter offered her the job and asked if she was still a virgin as she would be subjected to a research program. After explaining to May the various aspects of virginity, he asked May whether she would tell her family and friends if a male friend touched her. Later Doc Glen requested May to be back after lunch.

When May returned, Doc Glen asked her to be subjected to a research. May at first hesitated and inquired if such research would include hugging her but Doc Glen assured her that he was only kidding about it. So May agreed and they met at a designated place in his car. Then Doc Glen held her pulse and told her not to be scared. On the way Doc Glen asked May several questions about her body and required her to raise her feet and lower her pants to find out whether she has varicose veins. Then Doc Glen pushed her pants further down to her knees and held her thigh until he reached her pubic hair. When May instinctively raised her pants, Doc Glen touched her abdomen, her forehead and raised her skirt up to her and fondled her breast saying words of endearment. Shocked at what Doc Glen did, May covered herself and told Doc Glen that she was through with the research. Doc Glen gave May P300,000 asked her not to tell anybody about what just happened.

Upon reaching home, May did not immediately tell her mother what Doc Glen did to her. But a week later she already told her sister and mother about the incident after attempting to slash her wrist. She was thus referred to a psychologist who found out that May was emotionally disturbed and suffering for post trauma stress blaming herself for being so stupid as to allow Doc Glen to molest her. So Doc Glen was charged with the crime of sexual harassment before the Sandiganbayan.

During the trial, May and four other employees in his office testified on what Doc Glen did to them. But Doc Glen raised the defense of alibi and claimed that their complaints were pure political harassments because R.A. 7877 is not applicable to his case.

The Sandiganbayan however found Doc Glen guilty of the crime of sexual harassment under R.A. 7877 and sentenced him to imprisonment of six months, pay a fine of P20,000 with subsidiary imprisonment in case of insolvency. He was also ordered to indemnify May P300,000 moral damages and P200,000 exemplary damages.

On appeal to the Supreme Court (SC), Doc Glen insisted that R.A. 7877 is inapplicable to his case and thus he could not be convicted of sexual harassment. He also claimed that the evidence of the prosecution is insufficient to sustain his conviction beyond reasonable doubt.

But the SC ruled that Doc Glen is guilty as charged under Section 3 of RA 7877 which provides that any employer, employee, manager, teacher, instructor, coach or any other person with authority, influence or moral ascendancy over another in a work, education, training environment who demands, requests or otherwise requires any sexual favor from the other, regardless of whether the other accept the request or demand.

In this case, Doc Glen is a city health officer who was requested to help May in obtaining employment as a nurse.  But in exchange, he asked and succeeded in touching her private parts, legs and knees, hugging and kissing them and taking undue liberties on them on the pretext that they are part of a research which is necessary for her to get the job.

Doc Glen’s alibi that he was at another meeting when the incident happened is not also believable based on the factual findings of the Sandiganbayan which is in a better position to assess the credibility of the witnesses and the evidence presented by the parties. So Doc Glen should really be sentenced to imprisonment of six months for the crime of sexual harassment and pay a fine as well as moral and exemplary damages. (Jacutin vs. People, G.R. 140604, March 6, 2002)

*      *      *

Email: [email protected]