G.R. No. 211962 - Escandor vs. People

Case Summary (G.R. No. 211962)

Petitioner

Jose Romeo C. Escandor — charged with and convicted of sexual harassment under Republic Act No. 7877 for acts committed in the context of his official capacity and authority as Regional Director over a subordinate contractual employee.

Respondent / Complainant

People of the Philippines (prosecutor) acting on a criminal information; private offended party and complainant: Cindy Sheila Cobarde-Gamallo (Gamallo), who filed the underlying Complaint-Affidavit alleging repeated unwelcome sexual advances by Escandor from July 1999 until November/December 2003.

Key Dates

Escandor tenure as Regional Director: August 16, 1992 – October 31, 2005.
Alleged incidents: beginning July 1999 and continuing through 2003 (including conduct at office Christmas parties and repeated workplace contacts and messages).
Complaint-Affidavit filed by Gamallo: September 4, 2004.
Information filed: March 21, 2007.
Sandiganbayan Decision convicting Escandor: October 17, 2013 (Special Third Division).
Sandiganbayan Resolution denying reconsideration: February 28, 2014.
Supreme Court decision under review: affirmed the Sandiganbayan judgment (final disposition by the Court).

Applicable Law and Constitutional Basis

Primary statute: Republic Act No. 7877 (Anti-Sexual Harassment Act of 1995), including Section 3 (definition, elements) and Section 7 (penalties) and Section 6 (independent civil action). Administrative rules: CSC Resolution No. 01-0940 (Administrative Disciplinary Rules on Sexual Harassment Cases) and the 2017 Rules on Administrative Cases in the Civil Service. Subsequent legislation cited for context: Republic Act No. 11313 (Safe Spaces Act of 2019). Constitutional framework: 1987 Philippine Constitution (used as the constitutional basis because the decision date is after 1990).

Procedural Posture

Petitioner filed a Petition for Review on Certiorari under Rule 45 seeking reversal of Sandiganbayan’s conviction and the denial of his motion for reconsideration. The Sandiganbayan had found Escandor guilty beyond reasonable doubt of sexual harassment under RA 7877, sentenced him to imprisonment and a fine, and dismissed his post-trial motions. The Supreme Court reviewed only legal issues arising from the trial record, deferring to factual findings of the trial court absent clear error.

Facts Found by the Trial Court and Supported in Review

Gamallo testified to multiple episodes beginning July 1999: being summoned to Escandor’s office where he grabbed her hand, embraced her, and kissed her forehead; later making comments about his attraction to her and preventing her marriage; placing his hand on her thigh; making improper overtures at workplace events including attempted kissing at a Christmas party; sending unsolicited electronic messages (Winpop and text) with amorous/sexual content; and giving gifts. Gamallo’s distress prompted colleagues (Villamor, Tagalog) and an assistant regional director (Manuel) to take protective steps and to report the situation up the chain, resulting in administrative confrontation. Three colleagues corroborated Gamallo’s account; Escandor testified in denial and offered a single corroborative witness asserting a scheme to oust him. The Sandiganbayan credited Gamallo’s testimony and the corroboration, found the defense insufficiently supported, and convicted.

Legal Elements of RA 7877 and Their Application

RA 7877 requires proof of: (1) a person who has authority, influence or moral ascendancy over another; (2) that such authority/influence exists in a work-related, education- or training-related environment; and (3) that the person made a demand, request, or requirement of a sexual favor — which may be inferred from acts and need not be an explicit articulation. The Court confirmed each element on the record: (1) Escandor was Gamallo’s superior as NEDA Regional Director; (2) the conduct occurred within the workplace and work-related functions; (3) repeated physical contact, overtures, suggestive messages, requests for dates, and gifts constituted demands/requested sexual favors or otherwise produced a hostile/intimidating/offensive environment. RA 7877 is a special penal statute, characterized as malum prohibitum; hence criminal intent is not a required element — mere commission of the proscribed acts suffices.

Credibility, Burden of Proof and Deference to Trial Court

The Sandiganbayan assessed credibility at trial and found Gamallo credible, supported by corroborating witnesses. The Supreme Court reiterated the principle that factual findings and credibility assessments of the trial court carry great weight and should not be disturbed unless there is a showing that the trial court overlooked or misapplied controlling facts or circumstances. The petitioner’s denials and allegations of fabrication were insufficient to overturn the Sandiganbayan’s credibility determinations given the corroboration and the paucity of exculpatory witnesses presented by the defense.

Addressed Contentions — Date Discrepancy and Indefiniteness of Time Allegation

Petitioner argued violation of his right to be informed because Gamallo testified about a Christmas-party incident in 2000 while the Information specified the Christmas party of 2002, and that the Information alleged an indefinite time. The Court explained that the Information enumerated multiple distinct acts (separated by semicolons), of which the Christmas-party episode was only one item. Each listed act or set of acts, if proven, suffices for conviction. Further, because petitioner failed to move to quash or file a bill of particulars before arraignment, he waived any objection to the alleged indefiniteness. Rule 110, Section 11 permits "on or about" allegations where precise dates are not material, and time was not an essential element under RA 7877.

Addressed Contentions — Prescription and Delay in Filing

Petitioner contended unreasonable delay and prescriptive bar. The Court reaffirmed that RA 7877 prescribes criminal actions in three years; Gamallo’s last alleged incident was in December 2003 and she filed her Complaint-Affidavit in September 2004 (about nine months later), well within the three-year prescriptive period. The Court also emphasized there is no rigid expectation for immediate reporting of sexual harassment; delays may be reasonable depending on circumstances, emotional thresholds, and employment considerations. Prior jurisprudence recognizes that delay alone does not invalidate a complaint where the delay is justifiable and the claim remains within the prescriptive period.

Addressed Contentions — Motive and Past Conduct of the Complainant

Escandor argued ill motive, claiming the complaint was retaliatory or part of a scheme to oust him, and pointed to Gamallo’s earlier participation in an institutional memorandum supporting retention of NEDA leadership. The Court accepted Gamallo’s explanation that the memorandum sought to defend the institution and was not a personal exoneration of Escandor that negates the later allegations. Allegations of ill motive were not proven wit

Case Syllabus (G.R. No. 211962)

Procedural Posture

Petition for Review on Certiorari under Rule 45 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure filed by petitioner Jose Romeo C. Escandor (Escandor) seeking reversal of:
- The Sandiganbayan Special Third Division Decision dated October 17, 2013 finding Escandor guilty beyond reasonable doubt of sexual harassment under Republic Act No. 7877; and
- The Sandiganbayan Resolution dated February 28, 2014 denying his Motion for Reconsideration.
Information charging Escandor was dated March 21, 2007 (SB-07-CRM-0043).
Complaint-Affidavit by private complainant Cindy Sheila C. Gamallo was filed (Complaint-Affidavit dated September 4, 2004 referenced).
This Supreme Court decision (Per Justice Leonen) resolves the petition and affirms the Sandiganbayan conviction and penalty.

Parties and Roles

Petitioner: Jose Romeo C. Escandor — former Regional Director, National Economic and Development Authority (NEDA) Region 7, Cebu City (served August 16, 1992 to October 31, 2005).
Complainant / Victim: Cindy Sheila C. Gamallo — contractual employee of NEDA Region 7 for the UNICEF-assisted Fifth Country Program for Children (CPC V) from March 1995 to December 2003.
Respondent in criminal action: People of the Philippines.
Corroborating witnesses for complainant: Lina Villamor, Rafael Tagalog (Tagalog), Sandra Manuel (Manuel).
Escandor’s lone supportive witness: John Louis Savellon, a NEDA utility worker.

Summary of the Information (Allegations Charged)

Period charged: "on or about the period from the month of July 1999 until November 2003" at Cebu City.
Accused alleged to be a public officer committing the offense in relation to official functions, taking advantage of position, with grave abuse of authority.
Specific alleged acts listed in the Information (examples):
- Telling Gamallo he had fallen in love and had been attracted to her for a long time.
- Maliciously grabbing her hands, embracing her, and planting a kiss on her forehead.
- Saying he would have prevented her marriage if possible.
- Asking her for a date; groping her thigh.
- Sending Winpop messages showing amorous concern; sending text messages suggestive of sex.
- At an office Christmas party of 2002, grabbing her on a stairway and kissing her on the lips.
- Giving gifts of chocolates, wine, and a bracelet on that same Christmas.
The Information alleged these acts created an intimidating, hostile, or offensive environment causing discomfort and humiliation to Gamallo and adversely affecting her and her family, thus constituting sexual harassment.

Complainant’s (Gamallo) Factual Testimony and Chronology

First incident: One afternoon in July 1999 — Escandor summoned Gamallo, apologized for prior temper, asked her to approach, then "grabbed her hand, embraced her, and kissed her on the forehead."
Sometime in 2000: Escandor called Gamallo to his office, told her she was beautiful and smart, that many men admired her; stated he had been attracted to her for a long time and would have prevented her marriage; said "he liked the way I walked," "she was the kind of woman he wanted"; he said he loved her and "suddenly, I felt his hand on my thigh."
Repeated summons: Escandor frequently asked personal questions about her mood, home, weekends, family; Gamallo felt summoned frequently enough that colleagues intervened.
Electronic messages: Escandor sent unsolicited Winpop messages such as "Hello," "How are you today," "I miss you," "You look beautiful," "You look nice in your dress," and "I love you more every day"; when she did not reply, he threatened removal from the meeting list.
Christmas party incident (Gamallo’s testimony places one at 2000): After a dance at the party she was followed and grabbed by Escandor at the guard’s station; he attempted to kiss her on the lips but the kiss landed on her left cheek; she ran downstairs to Villamor.
Gifts: In the same year’s Christmas, Gamallo received chocolates, wine, an agenda book and a bracelet from Escandor.
Workshop incident (February 2001): While in Cebu for a workshop, Escandor tracked Gamallo and Villamor to a folk house near their hotel, insisted on paying for drinks (which they refused).
Duration and cessation: Gamallo alleged the advances continued until she quit her job in November 2003.

Corroborating Witness Testimony for the Prosecution

Lina Villamor:
- Testified Gamallo told her of the advances and Villamor personally saw overtures causing Gamallo to cry.
- Assisted in preventing Gamallo from being left alone with Escandor.
Rafael Tagalog:
- Immediate superior of Gamallo; saw Escandor commit "some improper acts and advances" toward Gamallo.
- Counseled Gamallo to give Escandor the benefit of the doubt; attempted to protect her by accompanying her when Escandor summoned her.
Sandra Manuel (Assistant Regional Director):
- Learned of incidents in 2000 (first via Villamor, then Gamallo).
- Dissuaded Gamallo from resigning; reported matter to NEDA Deputy Director General, prompting confrontation with Escandor.
- Testified that Escandor accused her of disloyalty and told her to resign after she reported the matter.

Accused’s Defense and Evidence

Escandor denied all allegations, testifying that acts were "pure fabrication."
Alibi and office layout: Claimed office was open and visible through large glass windows and that his wife worked at the same office, making secretive advances improbable.
Motive theory: Alleged complaint was part of a scheme by disgruntled employees to remove him and his wife; suggested complaint was retaliatory due to administrative cases he filed against Gamallo’s husband (Atty. Russ Mark Gamallo).
Supporting witness: John Louis Savellon testified that colleagues sought support to oust Escandor; when he declined, he alleged Atty. Gamallo and Mark Cabadsan harassed him and he overheard comments about filing sexual harassment cases against Escandor.
Credibility attacks: Escandor questioned Gamallo’s credibility pointing to alleged inconsistencies — her signature on a Memorandum Petition in October 2000 and her March 2003 application to be Escandor’s secretary.

Trial Court Findings (Sandiganbayan, October 17, 2013)

Found the prosecution proved elements of sexual harassment under Republic Act No. 7877 beyond reasonable doubt.
Credited Gamallo’s testimony as truthful: "there is nothing in the records that would indicate that Gamallo is dishonest or untruthful."
Noted paucity of defense witnesses: Escandor identified several persons who could have testified in his defense (including his wife) but presented only Savellon; held it was "unbelievable" that Escandor could not find other witnesses.
Sentenced Escandor to six (6) months imprisonment and a fine of Twenty Thousand Pesos (P20,000.00), with subsidiary imprisonment in case of insolvency.
Motion for Reconsideration by Escandor was denied in the Sandiganbayan Resolution of February