THIRD DIVISION

G.R. No. 140604            March 6, 2002

DR. RICO S. JACUTIN, petitioner,

vs.
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, respondent.

VITUG, J.:

In an accusatory Information, dated 22 July 1996, petitioner, City Health Officer Rico
Jacutin of Cagayan de Oro City, was charged before the Sandiganbayan, Fourth
Division, with the crime of Sexual Harassment, thusly:

"That sometime on or about 01 December 1995, in Cagayan de Oro City, and within the
jurisdiction of this Honorable Court pursuant to the provisions of RA 7975, the accused, a
public officer, being then the City Health Officer of Cagayan de Oro City with salary grade
26 but a high ranking official by express provision of RA 7975, committing the offense in
relation to his official functions and taking advantage of his position, did there and then,
willfully, unlawfully and criminally, demand, solicit, request sexual favors from Ms. Juliet
Q. Yee, a young 22 year-old woman, single and fresh graduate in Bachelor of Science in
Nursing who was seeking employment in the office of the accused, namely: by
demanding from Ms. Yee that she should, expose her body and allow her private parts to
be mashed and stimulated by the accused, which sexual favor was made as a condition
for the employment of Ms. Yee in the Family Program of the Office of the accused, thus
constituting sexual harassment." 1

Upon his arraignment, petitioner pled not guilty to the offense charged; hence, trial
proceeded.

Juliet Q. Yee, then a 22-year old fresh graduate of nursing, averred that on 28 November
1995 her father accompanied her to the office of petitioner at the City Health Office to
seek employment. Juliet’s father and petitioner were childhood friends. Juliet was
informed by the doctor that the City Health Office had just then filled up the vacant
positions for nurses but that he would still see if he might be able to help her.

The following day, 29 November 1995, Juliet and her father returned to the City Health
Office, and they were informed by petitioner that a medical group from Texas, U.S.A.,
was coming to town in December to look into putting up a clinic in Lapasan, Cagayan de
Oro, where she might be considered. On 01 December 1995, around nine o’clock in the
morning, she and her father went back to the office of petitioner. The latter informed her
that there was a vacancy in a family planning project for the city and that, if she were
interested, he could interview her for the job. Petitioner then started putting up to her a
number of questions. When asked at one point whether or not she already had a
boyfriend, she said "no." Petitioner suggested that perhaps if her father were not around,
she could afford to be honest in her answers to the doctor. The father, taking the cue,
decided to leave. Petitioner then inquired whether she was still a virgin, explaining to her
his theory on the various aspects of virginity. He "hypothetically" asked whether she
would tell her family or friends if a male friend happened to intimately touch her.
Petitioner later offered her the job where she would be the subject of a "research"
program. She was requested to be back after lunch.

Before proceeding to petitioner’s office that afternoon, Juliet dropped by at the nearby
church to seek divine guidance as she felt so "confused." When she got to the office,
petitioner made several telephone calls to some hospitals to inquire whether there was
any available opening for her. Not finding any, petitioner again offered her a job in the
family planning research undertaking. She expressed hesitation if a physical examination
would include "hugging" her but petitioner assured her that he was only kidding about it.
Petitioner then invited her to go bowling. Petitioner told her to meet him at Borja Street so
that people would not see them on board the same car together. Soon, at the designated
place, a white car driven by petitioner stopped. She got in. Petitioner held her pulse and
told her not to be scared. After dropping by at his house to put on his bowling attire,
petitioner got back to the car.

While driving, petitioner casually asked her if she already took her bath, and she said she
was so in a hurry that she did not find time for it. Petitioner then inquired whether she had
varicose veins, and she said "no." Petitioner told her to raise her foot and lower her pants
so that he might confirm it. She felt assured that it was all part of the research. Petitioner
still pushed her pants down to her knees and held her thigh. He put his hands inside her
panty until he reached her pubic hair. Surprised, she exclaimed "hala ka!" and
instinctively pulled her pants up. Petitioner then touched her abdomen with his right hand
saying words of endearment and letting the back of his palm touch her forehead. He told
her to raise her shirt to check whether she had nodes or lumps. She hesitated for a while
but, eventually, raised it up to her navel. Petitioner then fondled her breast. Shocked at
what petitioner did, she lowered her shirt and embraced her bag to cover herself, telling
him angrily that she was through with the research. He begged her not to tell anybody
about what had just happened. Before she alighted from the car, petitioner urged her to
reconsider her decision to quit. He then handed over to her P300.00 for her expenses.

Arriving home, she told her mother about her meeting with Dr. Jacutin and the money he
gave her but she did not give the rest of the story. Her mother scolded her for accepting
the money and instructed her to return it. In the morning of 04 December 1994, Juliet
repaired to the clinic to return the money to petitioner but she was not able to see him
until about one o’clock in the afternoon. She tried to give back the money but petitioner
refused to accept it.

A week later, Juliet told her sister about the incident. On 16 December 1995, she
attempted to slash her wrist with a fastener right after relating the incident to her mother.
Noticing that Juliet was suffering from some psychological problem, the family referred
her to Dr. Merlita Adaza for counseling. Dr. Adaza would later testify that Juliet, together
with her sister, came to see her on 21 December 1995, and that Juliet appeared to be
emotionally disturbed, blaming herself for being so stupid as to allow Dr. Jacutin to
molest her. Dr. Adaza concluded that Juliet’s frustration was due to post trauma stress.

Petitioner contradicted the testimony of Juliet Yee. He claimed that on 28 November

1995 he had a couple of people who went to see him in his office, among them, Juliet
and her father, Pat. Justin Yee, who was a boyhood friend. When it was their turn to talk
to petitioner, Pat. Yee introduced his daughter Juliet who expressed her wish to join the
City Health Office. Petitioner replied that there was no vacancy in his office, adding that
only the City Mayor really had the power to appoint city personnel. On 01 December
1995, the afternoon when the alleged incident happened, he was in a meeting with the
Committee on Awards in the Office of the City Mayor. On 04 December 1995, when Juliet
said she went to his office to return the P300.00, he did not report to the office for he was
scheduled to leave for Davao at 2:35 p.m. to attend a hearing before the Office of the
Ombudsman for Mindanao. He submitted in evidence a photocopy of his plane ticket. He
asserted that the complaint for sexual harassment, as well as all the other cases filed
against him by Vivian Yu, Iryn Salcedo, Mellie Villanueva and Pamela Rodis, were but
forms of political harassment directed at him.

The Sandiganbayan, through its Fourth Division, rendered its decision, dated 05
November 1999, penned by Mr. Justice Rodolfo G. Palattao, finding the accused, Dr.
Rico Jacutin, guilty of the crime of Sexual Harassment under Republic Act No. 7877. The
Sandiganbayan concluded:

"WHEREFORE, judgment is hereby rendered, convicting the accused RICO JACUTIN

Y SALCEDO of the crime of Sexual Harassment, defined and punished under R.A. No.
7877, particularly Secs. 3 and 7 of the same Act, properly known as the Anti-Sexual
Harassment Act of 1995, and is hereby sentenced to suffer the penalty of imprisonment
of six (6) months and to pay a fine of Twenty Thousand (P20,000.00) Pesos, with
subsidiary imprisonment in case of insolvency. Accused is further ordered to indemnify
the offended party in the amount of Three Hundred Thousand (P300,000.00) Pesos, by
way of moral damages; Two Hundred Thousand (P200,000.00) Pesos, by way of
Exemplary damages and to pay the cost of suit."2

In the instant recourse, it is contended that -

"I. Petitioner cannot be convicted of the crime of sexual harassment in view of the
inapplicability of Republic Act No. 7877 to the case at bar.

"II. Petitioner [has been] denied x x x his constitutional right to due process of law and
presumption of innocence on account of the insufficiency of the prosecution evidence to
sustain his conviction."3

The above contentions of petitioner are not meritorious. Section 3 of Republic Act 7877
provides:

"SEC. 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.

"(a) In a work-related or employment environment, sexual harassment is committed

when:

"(1) The sexual favor is made as a condition in the hiring or in the employment, re-
employment or continued employment of said individual, or in granting said individual
favorable compensation, terms, conditions, promotions, or privileges; or the refusal to
grant the sexual favor results in limiting, segregating or classifying the employee which in
any way would discriminate, deprive or diminish employment opportunities or otherwise
adversely affect said employee."

Petitioner was the City Health Officer of Cagayan de Oro City, a position he held when
complainant, a newly graduated nurse, saw him to enlist his help in her desire to gain
employment. He did try to show an interest in her plight, her father being a boyhood
friend, but finding no opening suitable for her in his office, he asked her about accepting
a job in a family planning research project. It all started from there; the Sandiganbayan
recited the rest of the story:

"x x x. Succeeding in convincing the complainant that her physical examination would be
a part of a research, accused asked complainant if she would agree that her private parts
(bolts) would be seen. Accused assured her that with her cooperation in the research,
she would gain knowledge from it. As complainant looked upon the accused with utmost
reverence, respect, and paternal guidance, she agreed to undergo the physical
examination. At this juncture, accused abruptly stopped the interview and told the
complainant to go home and be back at 2:00 o’clock in the afternoon of the same day,
December 1, 1995. Complainant returned at 2:00 o’clock in the afternoon, but did not
proceed immediately to the office of the accused, as she dropped by a nearby church to
ask divine guidance, as she was confused and at a loss on how to resolve her present
predicament. At 3:00 o’clock in the afternoon, she went back to the office of the accused.
And once inside, accused called up a certain Madonna, inquiring if there was a vacancy,
but he was told that she would only accept a registered nurse. Complainant was about to
leave the office of the accused when the latter prevailed upon her to stay because he
would call one more hospital. In her presence, a call was made. But again accused told
her that there was no vacancy. As all efforts to look for a job in other hospitals failed,
accused renewed the offer to the complainant to be a part of the research in the Family
Planning Program where there would be physical examination. Thereafter, accused
motioned his two (2) secretaries to go out of the room. Upon moving closer to the
complainant, accused asked her if she would agree to the offer. Complainant told him
she would not agree because the research included hugging. He then assured her that
he was just kidding and that a pre-schooler and high schooler have already been
subjected to such examination. With assurance given, complainant changed her mind
and agreed to the research, for she is now convinced that she would be of help to the
research and would gain knowledge from it. At this point, accused asked her if she was a
‘tomboy’, she answered in the negative. He then instructed her to go with him but he
would first play bowling, and later proceed with the research (physical examination). On
the understanding of the complainant that they will proceed to the clinic where the
research will be conducted, she agreed to go with the accused. But accused instructed
her to proceed to Borja St. where she will just wait for him, as it was not good for people
to see them riding in a car together. She walked from the office of the accused and
proceeded to Borja St. as instructed. And after a while, a white car arrived. The door was
opened to her and she was instructed by the accused to come inside. Inside the car, he
called her attention why she was in a pensive mood. She retorted she was not. As they
were seated side by side, the accused held her pulse and told her not to be scared. He
informed her that he would go home for a while to put on his bowling attire. After a short
while, he came back inside the car and asked her if she has taken a bath. She explained
that she was not able to do so because she left the house hurriedly. Still while inside the
car, accused directed her to raise her foot so he could see whether she has varicose
veins on her legs. Thinking that it was part of the research, she did as instructed. He told
her to raise it higher, but she protested. He then instructed her to lower her pants instead.
She did lower her pants, exposing half of her legs. But then the accused pushed it
forward down to her knees and grabbed her legs. He told her to raise her shirt. Feeling
as if she had lost control of the situation, she raised her shirt as instructed. Shocked, she
exclaimed, ‘hala ka!’ because he tried to insert his hand into her panty. Accused then
held her abdomen, saying, ‘you are like my daughter, ‘Day’! (Visayan word of
endearment),’ and let the back of his palm touch her forehead, indicating the traditional
way of making the young respect their elders. He again told her to raise her shirt. Feeling
embarrassed and uncomfortable, yet unsure whether she was entertaining malice, she
raised her shirt up to her breast. He then fondled her breast. Reacting, she impulsively
lower her shirt and embraced her bar while silently asking God what was happening to
her and asking the courage to resist accused’s physical advances. After a short while,
she asked him if there could be a right place for physical examination where there would
be many doctors. He just exclaimed, ‘so you like that there are many doctors!’ Then he
asked her if she has tooth decay. Thinking that he was planning to kiss her, she
answered that she has lots of decayed teeth. He advised her then to have them treated.
Finally, she informed him that she would not continue with the research. The accused
retorted that complainant was entertaining malice and reminded her of what she earlier
agreed; that she would not tell anybody about what happened. He then promised to give
her P15,000.00 so that she could take the examination. She was about to open the door
of the car when he suddenly grabbed her thigh, but this time, complainant instantly
parried his hand with her bag."4
While the City Mayor had the exclusive prerogative in appointing city personnel, it should
stand to reason, nevertheless, that a recommendation from petitioner in the appointment
of personnel in the municipal health office could carry good weight. Indeed, petitioner
himself would appear to have conveyed, by his words and actions, an impression that he
could facilitate Juliet’s employment. Indeed, petitioner would not have been able to take
undue liberalities on the person of Juliet had it not been for his high position in the City
Health Office of Cagayan de Oro City. The findings of the Sandiganbayan were bolstered
by the testimony of Vivian Yu, petitioner’s secretary between 1979 to 1994, of Iryn Lago
Salcedo, Public Health Nurse II, and of Farah Dongallo y Alkuino, a city health nurse, all
of whom were said to have likewise been victims of perverse behavior by petitioner.

The Sandiganbayan rightly rejected the defense of alibi proffered by petitioner, i.e., that
he was at a meeting of the Committee on Awards; the court a quo said:

"There are some observations which the Court would like to point out on the evidence
adduced by the defense, particularly in the Minutes of the meeting of the Awards
Committee, as testified to by witness Myrna Maagad on September 8, 1998.

"First, admitted, Teresita I. Rozabal was the immediate supervisor of witness Myrna
Maagad. The Notices to hold the meeting (Exh. ‘3-A’ and ‘3-B’) were signed by Teresita
Rozabal. But the Minutes of the meeting, Exh. ‘5’, was signed by Myrna Maagad and not
by Teresita Rozabal. The documents, Exhs. ‘3-A’ and ‘3-B’ certify that the officially
designated secretary of the Awards Committee was Teresita Rozabal.

"Second, why was Myrna Maagad in possession of the attendance logbook and how was
she able to personally bring the same in court when she testified on September 8, 1998,
when in fact, she admitted during her testimony that she retired from the government
service on December 1, 1997? Surely, Myrna Maagad could not still be the custodian of
the logbook when she testified.

"And finally, in the logbook, under the sub-heading, ‘Others Present,’ the attendance of
those who attended was individually handwritten by the persons concerned who wrote
and signed their names. But in the case of Dr. Tiro and Dr. Rico Jacutin, their names
were handwritten by clerk Sylvia Tan-Nerry, not by Dr. Tiro and Dr. Jacutin. However,
Myrna Maagad testified that the logbook was passed around to attending individuals
inside the conference room."5

Most importantly, the Supreme Court is not a trier of facts, and the factual findings of the
Sandiganbayan must be respected by, if not indeed conclusive upon, the tribunal, 6 no
cogent reasons having been sufficiently shown to now hold otherwise. The assessment
on the credibility of witnesses is a matter best left to the trial court because of its unique
position of being able to observe that elusive and incommunicable evidence on the
deportment of witnesses at the stand, an opportunity that is denied the appellate court. 7

Conformably with prevailing jurisprudence, the grant of moral and exemplary damages by
the Sandiganbayan must be tempered to reasonable levels. Moral damages are not
intended to enrich a complainant but are awarded only to enable an injured party obtain
some means that would help obviate the sufferings sustained on account of the culpable
action of an offender. Its award must not appear to be the result of passion or undue
prejudice,8 and it must always reasonably approximate the extent of injury and be
proportional to the wrong committed. Indeed, Juliet should be recompensed for her
mental anguish. Dr. Merlita F. Adaza, a psychological counseling expert, has found Juliet
to be emotionally and psychologically disturbed and suffering from post trauma stress
following her unpleasant experience with petitioner. The Court finds it fitting to award in
favor of Juliet Yee P30,000.00 moral damages. In addition, she should be entitled to
P20,000.00 exemplary damages to serve as a deterrent against, or as a negative
incentive to curb, socially deleterious actions.9

WHEREFORE, the questioned decision of the Sandiganbayan in Criminal Case No.

23799, finding Dr. Rico Jacutin y Salcedo GUILTY of the crime of Sexual Harassment
defined and punished under Republic Act No. 7877, particularly Sections 3 and 7 thereof,
and penalizing him with imprisonment of six (6) months and to pay a fine of Twenty
Thousand (P20,000.00) Pesos, with subsidiary imprisonment in case of insolvency, is
AFFIRMED. The Sandiganbayan’s award of moral and exemplary damages are
MODIFIED; instead, petitioner is ordered to indemnify the offended party, Juliet Yee, in
the amount of P30,000.00 and P20,000.00 by way of, respectively, moral damages and
exemplary damages. Costs against petitioner.

SO ORDERED.

Melo, (Chairman), Panganiban, Sandoval-Gutierrez, and Carpio, JJ., concur.