While there was lack of evidence to prove his guilt on charges of sexual harassment and act of lasciviousness, the Sandiganbayan still convicted a former Pasay City official of unjust vexation for grabbing a subordinate’s butt in 2015.
Sentenced to 15 days in prison was Ramon M. Montalban, former chief of the Pasay City Disaster Risk Reduction Management Office (DRRMO), on complaint filed by Rhodora A. Pimlott, an administrative officer at the time the offense was committed.
“While lascivious intent was not established beyond moral certainly in this case, accused’s act can still be considered as molestation... which remains to be a criminal offense that cannot be countenanced by this Court, especially considering the exacting standard of decorum required from public officials,” the Sandiganbayan said.
The decision was written by Associate Justice Bayani H. Jacinto with the concurrence of Fourth Division Chairperson Michael Frederick L. Musngi and Associate Justice Lorifel L. Pahimna.,
Pimlott filed her complaints against Montalban before the Office of the Ombudsman (OMB) in 2016. She alleged that Montalban solicited sexual favors from her and even grabbed her butt without her consent in April 2015.
Subsequently, the OMB charged Montalban before the Sandiganbayan with violations of Republic Act No. 7877, the Anti-Sexual Harassment Act of 1995, and Article 336 of the Revised Penal Code on acts of lasciviousness. Montalban pleaded not guilty to all the charges.
In its decision, the Sandiganbayan said there were "conflicting claims" between the prosecution and the defense. However, the prosecution's evidence that Montalban grabbed Pimlott's butt against her will was found "credible" because of the testimony of a vendor, Marites V. Agbuya, who witnessed the act, the court said.
But while the unwanted act was established, the court said that there was not enough evidence to support the claim that Montalban's actions resulted in a hostile and offensive working environment for Pimlott on her charge of sexual harassment.
"Her own testimony reveals that the hostility that she suffered was mainly attributable to accused Montalban's alleged bullying on Facebook," the court said. However, the evidence was not enough to prove the authenticity of the Facebook posts or that they were indeed made by Montalban, or that they were directed at Pimlott, it said.
"While the Court does not condone accused Montalban's act, it must nonetheless decide this case according to the requirements of law vis-a-vis the evidence presented -- particularly, on the strength of the prosecution's evidence. The Court, in this regard, finds the same wanting," the decision stated.
Meanwhile, the court also found the prosecution's evidence weak to pin Montalban down for acts of lasciviousness. However, the lesser offense of unjust vexation can still stand, it said.
"While the prosecution's evidence was insufficient to attribute accused's acts with the resultant hostile workplace environment Pimlott was alleged to have suffered from, her testimony is nonetheless sufficient to establish that she suffered mental distress from accused's act of grabbing her butt," the decision stated.
"As such, the Court finds that the prosecution was able to prove the lesser crime of Unjust Vexation under the second paragraph of Article 287 of the RPC and that the accused deserves to be meted out the penalty provided under the law to punish his action," it added.
The Sandiganbayan ruled:
“WHEREFORE, premises considered, the Court renders judgment as follows:
“1. In SB 18-CRM-0277, accused RAMON MAKABENTA MONTALBAN is hereby ACQUITTED of the offense of Sexual Harassment, defined and penalized under RA No. 78977, for failure of the prosecution to prove his guilt beyond reasonable doubt.
“2. In SN 18-CRM-0278 (Acts of Lasciviousness), accused RAMON MAKABENTA MONTALBAN is instead found GUILTY of the lesser felony of Unjust Vexation, as defined and penalized under the second paragraph of Art. 287 of the Revised Penal Code, and is accordingly sentenced to suffer the straight penalty fifteen (15) days of arresto menor. SO ORDERED.”