Case Summary (G.R. No. 211962)
Procedural History
Gamallo filed a criminal complaint in September 2004, and the Office of the Ombudsman filed an Information in the Sandiganbayan on March 21, 2007, charging Escandor under RA 7877. After trial, the Sandiganbayan Special Third Division issued a Decision on October 17, 2013, finding Petitioner guilty beyond reasonable doubt and sentencing him to six months’ imprisonment and a ₱20,000 fine (with subsidiary imprisonment). A Motion for Reconsideration was denied on February 28, 2014. Petitioner then sought Supreme Court review via Rule 45.
Issues
- Whether guilt for sexual harassment under RA 7877 was established beyond reasonable doubt.
- Whether a discrepancy in the date of one incident violated Petitioner’s right to be informed of the charge.
- Whether the criminal complaint was filed within the three-year prescriptive period.
Legal Framework under RA 7877
RA 7877 defines work-related sexual harassment as an offense committed by a person with authority, influence, or moral ascendancy over a subordinate who demands or requires sexual favors or creates an intimidating, hostile, or offensive environment. It imposes criminal (fine or imprisonment), civil (damages), and administrative liabilities. Being malum prohibitum, intent is immaterial; mere commission suffices. The three-year prescription runs from the last act of harassment.
Elements of Sexual Harassment and Application
Three elements must concur:
- Authority, influence, or moral ascendancy over the victim.
- Occurrence in a work-related environment.
- Demand, request, or requirement of sexual favor (which may be inferred from conduct).
Here, Petitioner’s position conferred authority; all incidents occurred at the workplace or work events; and his repeated uninvited physical and verbal advances, gift-giving, and threats (e.g., removal from meeting lists) plainly sought sexual favors and created a hostile environment.
Credibility of Complainant and Evidence
The Sandiganbayan gave full credence to Gamallo’s consistent, straightforward, and corroborated testimony. Her colleagues Villamor, Tagalog, and Manuel independently confirmed the unwelcome advances and demonstrated the effect on Gamallo. Escandor’s lone witness offered only speculation of a scheme against Petitioner. Deference to the trial court’s findings on witness credibility precludes overturning this factual determination absent clear misapprehension of evidence.
Right to be Informed and Information Defects
Petitioner argued that conviction for an act at the “2000 Christmas party” breached his right to be informed because the Information referenced the “2002 Christmas party.” The Court held that the Information separately listed multiple distinct acts; proof of any one act charged suffices for the conviction. Moreover, Petitioner failed to timely challenge the information’s date allegations before arraignment; any objection was thereby waived. Time was not an essential element under RA 7877, so “on or about” allegations were adequate.
Prescription and Delay
Although Gamallo’s complaint was filed more than four years after the first incidents, the last alleged act occurred in December 2003, and the criminal Information was filed in March 2007—well within the three-year prescription period under Section 7 of RA 7877. Delay does not per se undermine credibility; victims of sexual harassmen
...continue readingCase Syllabus (G.R. No. 211962)
Procedural History
- Petition for Review on Certiorari under Rule 45 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure by Jose Romeo C. Escandor seeking reversal of Sandiganbayan’s Decision of October 17, 2013 and Resolution of February 28, 2014.
- Sandiganbayan Special Third Division: found Escandor guilty beyond reasonable doubt of sexual harassment under Republic Act No. 7877; denied motion for reconsideration.
- Issues brought before the Supreme Court: (1) proof of guilt, (2) date discrepancy of alleged acts, (3) timeliness of the complaint.
Facts
- Jose Romeo C. Escandor was Regional Director of NEDA Region 7 (1992–2005); Cindy Sheila C. Gamallo was contractual NEDA Region 7 employee (1995–2003).
- From July 1999 to November 2003, Escandor allegedly made unwelcome sexual advances—verbal and physical—to Gamallo, his subordinate.
- Specific acts included hand-grabbing, forehead and cheek kisses, thigh-groping, offers of dates, amorous messages via Winpop and text, gifts (chocolates, wine, bracelet), and a 2000 Christmas-party lip kiss.
- Gamallo told colleagues Lina Villamor and Rafael Tagalog; they and Assistant Regional Director Sandra Manuel attempted to shield her.
- Three witnesses (Villamor, Tagalog, Manuel) corroborated Gamallo’s account; Escandor denied all allegations, claiming fabrication and conspiracy by disgruntled employees.
- Escandor presented one defense witness, denied wrongdoing, and challenged Gamallo’s motives and credibility.
Issues Presented
- Whether Escandor’s guilt for sexual harassment under RA 7877 was proven beyond reasonable doubt.
- Whether the discrepancy as to which Chri