Thursday, June 4, 2009

Careless Whisper: Sex,Lies,Videos and the Law

I’m not exactly frantic when the sex video featuring cosmetic surgeon Dr.Hayden Kho and starlet Katrina Halili came out spreading like a wild fire in the Internet. In fact on the very first day when the video came out, a friend even boasted (short of teasing me) that he had already watched the video several times and still could not believe that it was indeed Starstruck survivor Katrina Halili. To me it was just one of those cheap showbiz scandals similar, but not identical, to the Kris Aquino-Joey Marquez affair years ago. (Remember STD?) Well for one, with the emerging trend of cyber technology and the proliferation of techie gadgets, most young couples these days are into sex videos. Society refuses to accept this but this is the naked truth in this time and age. Personally I have nothing against it as long it remains private and a purely consensual act. But more importantly they should be responsible adults always aware of the consequences of their actions. Some couples have their reasons for doing it, some purely out of love, while others simply as an adventure, for whatever reason that too should remain private. Unfortunately for the erstwhile lovers they crossed the line.

Prior to the release of the infamous sex video, a less inflammable video was released popularly known as the “careless whisper” dance video. (Pardon the pun!) At first Katrina denied that it was her who was in that video. The content however showed a woman strip dancing with Hayden to the sensual tune of George Michael’s Careless Whisper. Later she recanted and admitted that it was her and that they were actually rehearsing for an upcoming performance for Celebrity Duets wherein Hayden was one of the celebrity contestants. Honestly, I do not intend to watch any of those infamous videos. I guess watching the news and reading dallies are enough facts and evidence regarding the existence of said videos. No need to belabor this point.

What concerns me though are the legal ramifications amidst this controversy. Are there enough laws to protect women against “perverts of the highest kind"? (Whatever that means, only the morally upright Senator Bong Revilla knows) or what possible crime(s) did Hayden Kho allegedly commit if viewed within purview of the Revised Penal Code or any special laws?

In so far as criminal liability is concerned, our Revised Penal Code (RPC) is too outdated, if not inutile, to cover crimes involving the use of technological gadgets or devises. What we have so far are general crimes or offenses involving acts, which in the language of the law, cause annoyance, irritation, vexation or disturbance to the mind of another person. Article 287 (par. 2) of the RPC for instance deals with the crime of unjust vexation and punishes the offender by arresto menor or a fine ranging from five (5) to two (2) hundred pesos or both. Law textbooks define unjust vexation “as any human conduct which, although not productive of some physical or material harm would, however unjustly annoy or vex an innocent person.” Clearly this crime is too elastic and toothless at best which covers almost any act as long as the element of annoyance is present. There are some who suggested that Article 359 of the RPC is somewhat applicable. Said provision refers to the crime of slander by deed. By definition, slander by deed is a crime against honor by which the offender performs any act which cast dishonor, discredit, or contempt upon another person. Among the essential elements in this crime is that the offender must perform the act in the presence of other person or persons with the intent to humiliate the offended party. Nevertheless taking into account the all-pervasive nature of the Internet, the penalty for this crime may not be commensurate to the degree of degradation and humiliation it has caused to the victims.

The only possible avenue perhaps, is to resort to a special law.

For this reason, a criminal complaint has already been filed against Kho allegedly for violating Republic Act No. 9262 also known as “Anti-Violence Against Women and Their Children Act of 2004.” What is novel under this law is its broad application with regard to the relationship of the parties. Thus Section three (3) (a) of said act pertinently states that, “Violence against women and their children refers to any act or series of acts committed by any person against a woman who is his wife, or against a woman with whom the person has or had sexual or dating relationship…” Clearly to find application, the relationship of the parties may not necessarily be that of a husband and wife, or founded upon a valid or common law (live-in) marriage. This is evident from the letter and intent of the law when it speaks of “dating relationship.” The law however excludes mere casual acquaintance or ordinary socialization between two individuals in a business or social context. To come under the phrase “dating relationship,” the parties should have at least dated or involved romantically one time or the other, or on a continuing basis during the course of the relationship.

The act of videotaping or filming of an otherwise intimate sexual encounter sans consent of the woman may well be considered as a serious affront to women’s rights. Note that the type of violence punishable under said law is not limited to sexual or physical abuse but psychological as well. Thus the law clearly defines Psychological violence as “acts or omissions causing or likely to cause mental or emotional suffering of the victim such as but not limited to…public ridicule or humiliations…” Under this form of violence, the offender is made to suffer the penalty of prision mayor or imprisonment of six (6) years and one (1) day to twelve (12) years. Fair enough if you ask me, otherwise Hayden Kho can always invoke the criminal law principle of Nullum crimen nulla poena sine lege (There is no crime, when there is no law punishing it) to escape criminal liability.

Another possible legal remedy is to file for a separate or independent civil action for violation of privacy rights under the Civil Code. But the privacy issue here is not the focal point of the controversy, the best you can get out of this legal principle as applied to this particular case is civil liability. Yes, we are not talking here of imprisonment assuming Kho may be found liable in the courts of law for invasion of privacy.

Ironically a law maker even cited the right to privacy as enshrined in the Bill of Rights as the basis for Kho’s probable liability. This is an erroneous interpretation to say the least. The right to privacy as enshrined in the Constitution is a protection against governmental intrusion and not against private individuals. Simply put, assuming Kho violated the privacy of his victims, his liability should come under the Civil Code and not the Constitution since he is a private individual.

The salient provision which deals with privacy rights is Article 26 of the Civil Code which states, “Every person shall respect the dignity, personality, privacy and peace of mind of his neighbors and other persons…” This provision obviously recognizes and protects the sacredness of human personality against various forms of violation to privacy rights. With the increasing invasive capability of electronic gadgets or devises nowadays, the right to privacy is said to be the constant victim of unreasonable intrusions in this society. The protection of privacy rights under this provision is not limited to locational or physical privacy it also covers psychological privacy of every person. Thus, the law speaks of, “peace of mind of his neighbors and other persons.”

Essentially, if two consenting adults decided to make a sex video exclusively for their own consumption and for whatever reason, such is covered within their right to privacy. In any case it should be respected because it is protected by law. But while the law protects the privacy of private individuals, the law also imposes reasonable limitations for its exercise. What makes it prohibited under the law for example is if it is made under scandalous circumstances or if the other party did not consent to the act of videotaping or recording. In any case the law certainly recognizes any forms of privacy as long as it is not contrary to law, morals, public policy etc.

In the ultimate analysis, whether criminal or civil liability, consent is an essential element to determine the fate of Hayden Kho. Having said this, the pressing question that comes to mind is: Did Katrina consent to the act, not the act of sexual intercourse, but obviously to the video recording? Note that the operative word here is “consent.” According to news reports and interviews Katrina vehemently denies that she had knowledge whatsoever with Kho’s act of videotaping their sexual encounter much less giving her consent. If this is indeed true, then Hayden Kho is in a difficult position here. Sink or swim, he has to come up with a legal defense which will establish a consensual act and then shift the blame to those who allegedly stole and uploaded the videos in the internet. From what I heard, the legal counsel of Kho opted to put an insanity defense or that he was too high on drugs when he videotaped or recorded the sexual encounter. Sounds like a legal cop-out? Well let’s give Dr.Hayden Kho the presumption of innocence for now, after all even the “pervert of the highest kind” deserves this constitutional presumption.

PS
What about the culprit(s) who allegedly stole the videos from the hard drive and eventually uploaded it in the Internet for public viewing? To be sure, our laws (i.e. The E-Commerce Law) are not sufficient enough when we talk about cyber technology let alone cyber or Internet crimes. The acts of uploading and downloading of videos through the Internet are technical terms or should I say too “teki” for our lawmakers. This to my mind is a proper subject for Legislative investigation in aid of legislation in its purest sense.

13 comments:

Anonymous said...

Thank you sir for this very informative article.

Dapat ba talaga dalhin pa sa kongreso ang ganitong usapin. Alam mo sa totoo lang nakaka praning, na sa dinami-dami ng problima ng ating bansa itong skandalo ng ginawa ng mga taong malalaki na at pasaway sa lipunan ating pa ring pinag-uusapan. Si katrina babae, artista dapat maging modelo sa kabataan. Si Dr. kho Doctor, may pangalan dapat maging modelo sa mga kabataan. Pero ano ginawa nila. Kaya yan ang dapat sa kanila, kahihiyan at sumpa ng sambayang pilipino. Aaminin ko ala akong masyadong alam sa batas...ngunit ang ganitong usapin na ang kinalaman ay udyok ng LAMAN, dapat hindi na pinagtutuon ng pansin. Pwede bang ikulong yung dalawang iyan...ano sa palagay mo sir.???? total sila naman na sarapan dba? sila din dapat magdurusa....

Christopher Diaz Bonoan said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Christopher Diaz Bonoan said...

Welcome and thank you for visiting my blog site.

I totally understand your concerns. But again the issue here is not about personalities, we have to focus on the legal and moral implications arisng from this controversy As I said, inutil ang mga batas natin to cover cyber crimes, at kung meron man, masyadong mababa ang penalties.

I am a believer of the law especially when it comes to issues involving privacy. However in the case of Dr.Kho nilabag nya to when he filmed the sexual encounter sans consent of katrina et. al.Sa totoo lang wala tayong pakialam kung anong gusto nilang gawin as long as inde scandalous or inde nakaapekto sa publiko. But un na nga dahil sa irresponsible actions ni Dr.Kho kumalat yung videos.

And as to legislative inquiry, I think this is a legimate subject so that our lawmaker will have good insights on cyber technology. Masyado kc itong invasive so dapat commensurate and penalties. But then again, ang issue inde dapat mag focus kina Dr.Kho and Katrina dapat anticipatory yung approach ng investigation, meaning, paano natin maiiwasan ang mga ganitong pangyayari.At kung inde man maiwasan, we have enough laws to punish the culprits.

I hope nakatulong ako sayo. salamat

baycas2 said...

Thoughts on KH v. HK (updated 05/27/09)…

The whole affair might center on a stolen private video disseminated on the internet and distributed in optical disks causing psychological violence on the part of the woman-complainant…

(a) Stolen private video – The man alleges it was a private sex video albeit a non-consensual video recording. It was his own consensual sexual encounter done in private and may even pass to some as non-obscene in nature. The non-consensual video recording, although widely perceived to be wrong (or an act by one who is sick or a pervert), may not be a crime. (The injustice secretary early on spoke of a possible anti-wiretapping case – R.A. 4200…for the recording of the “ugh’s and aah’s” of the partners?)

(b) Internet uploading – This borders on “indecent publication of pornographic materials” (as mentioned by the NBI). Is there a law against uploading a non-obscene material? Or, if the material is considered pornographic, is there a law against uploading it to the internet? Anti-piracy law (R.A. 9239 which ensures the protection and promotion of intellectual property rights) maybe? A wise guy commented that the video is actually a copyrighted material – he said, “what better way to copyright a personal video than by starring in it.”

(c) Optical disk creation and distribution – Obviously, this is for profit. This borders on “indecent publication of pornographic materials.” This could be covered by our Revised Penal Code…

baycas2 said...

Revised Penal Code
Title Six
CRIMES AGAINST PUBLIC MORALS
Chapter Two
OFFENSES AGAINST DECENCY AND GOOD CUSTOMS

Art. 201. Immoral doctrines, obscene publications and exhibitions and indecent shows. — The penalty of prision mayor or a fine ranging from six thousand to twelve thousand pesos, or both such imprisonment and fine, shall be imposed upon:

(3) Those who shall sell, give away or exhibit films, prints, engravings, sculpture or literature which are offensive to morals.


…However, there was no mention of “optical disk.” Besides, proper definition of obscenity and indecency should be in order. How about anti-fencing law (P.D. No. 1612) inasmuch as the culprit/s reproduced and distributed stolen property?

(d) Psychological violence (R.A. 9262) – The man alleges he was also a victim and all he did was record a video, although non-consensual as alleged by the victim. The video was supposed to be a private or personal one. As drawn together from the statements of the man’s lawyer, how could he have caused substantial emotional or psychological distress and public humiliation on the victim when he himself is a victim? Remember the “bonsai” remark (by the injustice secretary) and “the not-so-deadly weapon” article (PDI’s Mon Tulfo)? On the internet: “Some of those who have seen the sex video said Hayden wasn’t well-endowed down under. If it was Hayden who took the video, he only has himself to blame for exposing his shortcoming.” On radio, Cong. Locsin hinted of a curtailment of the man’s right to due process when he said, in reaction to the man’s mom’s request to hear her son’s side, that the man’s side is no longer needed as he already gave his side…all of it, actually…right, left, front, back, top…and even the “bottom of his feet.”

It’s possible there is now mental or emotional anguish on the man and he is also at present publicly ridiculed and humiliated (Now, talk of a lobby group to demand a law against violence to men is in the drawing stage). Not only was the man’s privates are dishonored but his privacy was also violated when his private property was stolen...

baycas2 said...

(Now, come to think of it, how will they appreciate the admissibility of evidence if only a copy of the stolen private video can be produced? How will the maker of the video tell if the video that will be produced in court is the original digital recording* – the author, date and time stamps in “Properties” possibly? Well, that’s probably the case why the Anti-Fraud and Computer Crimes Division of the NBI is handling the case. The OMB would also come in handy in investigating the copyrighted material.)

The one who mainly caused psychological violence to the victim is the one who made the video public. True? Abangan…

*Footnote:
A.M. No. 01-7-01-SC [Rules on E-Commerce Law (R.A. No. 8792)]
RULES ON ELECTRONIC EVIDENCE
Rule 11. Audio, Photographic, Video And Ephemeral Evidence
SECTION 1. Audio, video and similar evidence. – Audio, photographic and video evidence of events, acts or transactions shall be admissible provided it shall be shown, presented or displayed to the court and shall be identified, explained or authenticated by the person who made the recording or by some other person competent to testify on the accuracy thereof.

baycas2 said...

KH may prove to be our Susan Wilson…she’ll also learn the hard way that a high-tech invasion of privacy wasn't against our existing laws.

-----

Trivia:

LO: What’s the most beautiful dream that you ever had?

KHO: “The whole world was flooded and I was onboard this huge ark that was flying.”

LO: What’s the Freudian explanation to that?

KHO: “Well, maybe that I’m bound for something spectacular and the world will recognize me for it. Ha, ha, ha, ha, ha!”

From newsflashdotorg, Ricardo Lo interviews Hayden Kho

Jery said...

salamat sir chris sa article nyo. sa pagkakaintindi ko po ang pinaguusapan nyo d2 ay tungkol sa liability ni Hayden inde ung kung sino ang nag upload ng videos sa internet...

maganda rin sinabi ni baycas tungkol sa liability ng mga nagnakaw..kaya lang before posting a comment dapat muna ibigay credit ung author bago ka mag lagay ng comment..observation lang po baycas...thank you po sir chris

baycas2 said...

Jery,

Ako po ang sumulat ng lahat...maliban po sa mga batas at sa trivia na nailathala sa pahayagan.

Putol-putol lang po ang komento ko dahil hindi sapat ang comment box sa haba ng aking mga iniisip ukol sa kaso.

Maaari n'yo pong mabasa nang buo ang aking mga komento dito sa sumusunod:

May 22, 2009 at 3:41 am

May 30, 2009 at 1:11 am

May 31, 2009 at 8:23 pm

May 31, 2009 at 8:24 pm

Salamat.

Anonymous said...

Good post and Smart Blog
Thanks for your good information and i hope to subscribe and visit my blog STD Symptoms and more Scabies Causes thanks again admin

Anonymous said...

pde pa din manalo si denise laban kay vhong kun gagamitin ang batas na violence against women & children?

Blogger said...

I have just installed iStripper, so I can have the hottest virtual strippers on my taskbar.

Blogger said...

Searching for the Best Dating Site? Create an account to find your perfect date.