Hayden Kho wins over Katrina Halili's case - Court dismissed the case due to insufficient evidence

Pasig Regional Trial Court (RTC) dismissed the case filed by Katrina Halili alleging Hayden Kho of uploading and spreading their video scandal in the internet last year. According to reports, the decision was released due to lack of sufficient evidences.

Katrina filed the case last year to Hayden Kho. A violation in RA 9262 - the Anti Violence Against Women and Children Act. She filed the case alongside with a claim that she did know that Hayden has an installed camera and caught the private scenes intentionally and without knowing.

According to local news reports, Kho's family were very happy and teary-eyed as the court read the final decision. The medical license of Hayden was revoked by Professional Regulation Commission last year due to Katrina Halili's request to do so. Meanwhile, Hayden's dad is wishing that upon the release of case dismissal, PRC will also bring back his son's medical license.

Here the script of the case dismissal statement sent to Pep.ph by their lawyers.

"On the charge of uploading the video in the internet, the prosecution failed to present ANY evidence on the charge of illegally uploading the videos.

"In fact, the prosecution readily admitted and acknowledged that there was no evidence that the accused uploaded the said videos. As such, Honorable Court does not see any reason to hold the accused criminally liable.

"With respect to the charge of video taping the encounter without the knowledge of the Halili, the Court held that 'the Court itself saw during the ocular inspection that the video camera was situated in an open and unconcealed place which cannot escape unnoticed.

"And so, what resonates with this Court is that the accused repeatedly stated his Affidavit that the camera was never hidden from private complainant, and that it was in plain view.

"The Court further held that 'this should explain why the accused did not anymore ask for private complainant Halili's express consent to the video taking. There was no need to belabor the obvious: the video camera was there visible to both of them, it was aimed at the direction of the bed, and it was already the fourth occasion when their libidinous activities were recorded in video. That is why the Court cannot believe the prosecution's insistence that the private complainant was unaware of the video taking.'

"As a result of the findings of the Court, the Court held that "[I]n light of the above discussions, it is clear that evidence is insufficient to prove that the sex video was taken without the private complainant's knowledge.

"On this score alone, it will already be very hard to hold the accused criminally responsible for his act of taking the sex video.

"The mere taking of the sex video by the accused without the private complainant's knowledge and consent is not yet a violation of Republic Act 9262, otherwise known as the Anti-Violence Against Women and Their Children Act of 2004.

"It becomes a crime only when the said act 'alarms or causes substantial emotional or psychological distress to the woman.'

"However, as correctly pointed out by the Court, the expert witnesses of the prosecution themselves namely the NBI Psychologist-In-Charge, Ms. Alcuaz, and the NBI Psychiatrist, Dr.Papa, testified that the cause of the psychological distress of complainant Halili is the uploading of the video NOT the video taping of the encounter.

"Thus, it was the prosecution's own evidence that proved that the psychological damage was not cause by the video taking. As such, the court held that the prosecution has not adduced evidence sufficient to establish any criminal responsibility of the act of taking and recording the sex video."