Thinking Pinoy: Sen. Leila de Lima cites “Frailties of a Woman”? No, that's called crime!

November 15, 2016

Sen. Leila de Lima cites “Frailties of a Woman”? No, that's called crime!

De Lima's interview last night has basically opened the floodways of court cases. With last night's admission, let's check the laws, rules, or regulations that LP attack pig Leila de Lima may have violated.

Background


In an interview with GMA7’s Winnie Monsod, De Lima finally categorically admitted that she had an affair with Ronnie Dayan. Evaluating that admission against what we have learned during the Congressional Hearings, let’s take a look at what the future will hold for the infamous Liberal Party attack pig.

In the show “Bawal ang Pasaway”, Monsod asked de Lima, “The question that arises from the minds of everybody, ‘Why did she fall for a driver-bodyguard?’”

De Lima answered, “Frailties of a Woman.”

Monsod asked, “How long did the affair last?”

De Lima said, “A few years? We became so close, that’s it, because I trusted him. And syempre, naano po ang loob ko.”

De Lima also admitted to giving Dayan financial privileges.

Monsod said, “The problem with Dayan is he was married daw.”

De Lima said Dayan was already legally separated from his wife.

Wait, legal separation means the two are still married. Wait, what kind of lawyer is this?

Before the show aired, de Lima has already admitted to the Manila Times that she had close ties with Dayan. However, she refused to explain the exact nature of that close relationship.

“We got close, but just how close I will no longer touch on that because it’s too personal,” de Lima said [MT].

But now that she has admitted having "privileged access" to Dayan's "masculine territory"...

Concubinage?

According to the Rules of Court, Rule 138, Section 27 [LawPhil]:

Attorneys removed or suspended by Supreme Court on what grounds. — A member of the bar may be removed or suspended from his office as attorney by the Supreme Court for… grossly immoral conduct…

Now, concubinage is our most probable knee-jerk reaction upon reading “grossly immoral conduct”, where concubinage is defined by the Revised Penal Code Article 334 [ChanRobles] asArt. 334. Concubinage. — Any husband who… shall have sexual intercourse, under scandalous circumstances, with a woman who is not his wife… shall be punished by prision correccional in its minimum and medium periods. The concubine shall suffer the penalty of destierro.

SIDE NOTE: Destierro is banishment [LawCenter].
De Lima admitted she had an affair [had sexual intercourse] with Dayan while she was Justice Secretary [under scandalous circumstances]. However, she can only be prosecuted if the case is filed by Dayan’s aggrieved wife.

Revised Penal Code Article 344 states:
Prosecution of the crimes of adultery, concubinage, seduction, abduction, rape and acts of lasciviousness. — The crimes of adultery and concubinage shall not be prosecuted except upon a complaint filed by the offended spouse.
If Dayan’s wife files a case against Dayan and de Lima, then de Lima will most probably be convicted and subsequently disbarred.

A concubinage lawsuit is the best option if the purpose is to have de Lima disbarred, as she herself admitted committing the crime so there aren’t many options for her as far as legal defenses go.

The problem, however, is if the wife will sue.

If she doesnt, that doesn’t mean de Lima is already off the hook.

Grave Scandal


While we cannot sue De Lima for concubinage because we are not Dayan’s wife, we can still sue her for Grave Scandal.

According to the Revised Penal Code Art. 200 [ChanRobles]:

The penalties of arresto mayor and public censure shall be imposed upon any person who shall offend against decency or good customs by any highly scandalous conduct not expressly falling within any other article of this Code.
Now, I checked the elements of Grave Scandal [Reviewer] and these are:
  1. Offender performs an act
  2. Act is highly scandalous as offending against decency or good customs
  3. Highly scandalous conduct does not expressly fall within any other article of the RPC
  4. Committed in a public place or within the public knowledge or view. (The public view is not required, it is sufficient if in public place. For public knowledge, it may occur even in a private place; the number of people who sees it is not material).
Now, let me explain how this can work.

First, the act in question will not be the De Lima-Dayan affair itself, as the act should have been committed publicly. Instead, it shall be de Lima’s admission of (1) the existence of an affair between Dayan and her and (2) De Lima’s provision of financial favors to Dayan while as the affair ensued.

Second, is it socially acceptable for a sitting Justice Secretary to have an affair with her married driver-bodyguard? No, that’s just wrong. Is it socially acceptable for a sitting Senator to publicly admit such an affair transpired? No, she should have kept those horrid details to herself. Is it socially acceptable for a public official, who happens to be the paramour, to grant financial favors to her driver-lover? No.

Third, concubinage falls under Article 334, but the public admission of concubinage is not.

Fourth, she committed the act, i.e. she admitted to being a concubine, on National TV.

If convicted for Grave Scandal, de Lima may be imprisoned for one to six months (Arresto Mayor) [BatasNatin]. This will also be grounds for disbarment.

But wait, there’s more!

“Grave Scandal” is probably the “kindest” option for anyone who wants to see de Lima behind bars, as it is generally considered a misdemeanor.

Yes, we may be able to sue her for something better than “Grave Scandal”.

Sexual Harassment


De Lima may also be sued for sexual harassment.

According to RA 7877, Sec.3 [UMN]:

Sexual harassment is committed by… any other person who, having authority… over another in a work… environment… 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.

In a work-related… environment, sexual harassment is committed when… the sexual favor is made as a condition… in granting said individual favorable… privileges…

Now, let me break this down for you.
 
First, de Lima has authority over her bodyguard-driver Ronnie Dayan.

Second, de Lima clearly required sexual favors from Dayan, as shown by her admission of having a love affair with him.

Third, Dayan’s acceptance of such a requirement is immaterial.

Fourth, then-Justice Secretary de Lima clearly wouldn’t have given Dayan financial privileges if she didn’t have access to his penis. I believe the key to winning this case is through interrogating other de Lima employees and ask them if de Lima gave them the same financial favors given to Dayan. If that can be established, then there’s a good chance we can win this case. For example, we can ask Joenel if he, like Dayan, was given a house and lot package [Inq].

Oh, wait! Joenel also granted de Lima penile access, right?

Shit.

But wait, there’s more!

Graft and Corruption

De Lima could have also violated Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act (RA 3019).
RA 3019 Section 2 includes appointive public officials and employees in the definition “Public officer”. De Lima is obviously a public official. Dayan, being a de Lima appointee, is also a public officer under this definition.
According to RA 3019 Sec. 3(a), Corrupt practices of public officers include [Gov]:
Persuading, inducing or influencing another public officer to perform an act constituting a violation of rules and regulations duly promulgated by competent authority or an offense in connection with the official duties of the latter, or allowing himself to be persuaded, induced, or influenced to commit such violation or offense.
De Lima persuaded, induced, or influenced Dayan to agree to conspire in committing sexual harassment, with the sexual harassment issue explained in the previous section.

Needless to say, Republic Acts are rules and regulations promulgated by competent authority, and the Sexual Harassment Law’s applicability on both de Lima and Dayan are underscored by Aquino-era Labor Secretary Rosalinda Dimapilis-Baldoz’s 2011 call on employers to help avoid sexual harassment incidents [Gov]. De Lima is basically Dayan’s immediate employer.

De Lima may also have violated RA 3019 Sec. 3(b), which states [Gov]:

Corrupt practices of public officers (include) Directly… receiving any… benefit, for himself… in connection with (a) contract… between the Government and any other part, wherein the public officer in his official capacity has to intervene under the law.

The contract here would be Dayan’s employment contract, where the employer would be Leila de Lima in behalf of the government in her capacity as Justice Secretary.

And as for the “benefit”, it’s her access to Ronnie Dayan’s penis.

Code of Ethics for Public Officials

The Code of Ethics for Public Officials (RA 6713) Section 4(b) states [Gov]:

Public officials and employees… shall endeavor to discourage wrong perceptions of their roles as dispensers or peddlers of undue patronage.
Needless to say, having an affair with a driver-bodyguard AND giving him financial benefits in the process directly violates this section.

Moreover, Section 7(d) states:
Public officials and employees shall not solicit or accept, directly or indirectly, any favor (or) entertainment… from any person in the course of their official duties or in connection with any operation being regulated by, or any transaction which may be affected by the functions of their office. De Lima, the public official, accepted sexual favors (or entertainment, if you want to put it that way) in connection with Dayan’s employment which is affected by her functions as DoJ secretary.

I won’t expound on this anymore. It’s as clear as day.

Not just sex

Here’s the thing: Leila’s interview also reminded me that she also did something else that clearly violated RA’s 3019 and 3713.

De Lima said in the interview,” …advise sa akin nung dating BuCor Director Bucayu tsaka ni Gen. Villasanta na wag daw ho munang isama na ipalipat din si Jaybee Sebastian doon sa NBI detention facility dahil papatayin daw po iyang si Jaybee dahil siya po ang isa sa mga sources nung information about doon sa mga ginagawa nila Colangco. Kaya in that sense, naturingan po siyang isang asset.”

(Translation: Bureau of Corrections Director Bucayu and Gen. Villasanta advised me against transferring Jaybee Sebastian to the NBI detention facility because he will get killed. Jaybee is a source of information about Colangco’s misdeeds so in that sense, he considered an asset.)

Now, RA 3019 Sec. 3(k) states:
Corrupt practices of public officers (include) divulging valuable information of a confidential character, acquired by his office or by him on account of his official position to unauthorized persons, or releasing such information in advance of its authorized release date.

The confidential information was that inmate Sebastian is an asset, information she was acquired as Justice Secretary. She then released that information to the public last month De Lima in September [GMA], a public that is clearly unauthorized to know of such a thing as it would be prejudicial to the ongoing Bilibid investigations.

She even released this information despite knowing at that time that Sebastian was incarcerated in Building 14 where the NBI detainees were relocated. Oh, and did I say Sebastian was stabbed because of it [ABS]?

Clearly, any self-respecting person, let alone a public officer, will give priority to another person’s life over saving her reputation.

De Lima isn’t that kind of person.

RA 6713 reiterates this in Section 7(c), which states:
Public officials and employees shall not use or divulge, confidential or classified information officially known to them by reason of their office and not made available to the public… to prejudice the public interest.
Yes, de Lima violated two birds with one stone.

Lawyer’s Code


Let’s take a look at three pertinent rules in the “Code of Professional Responsibility”:

Rule 1.01 states:
A lawyer shall not engage in unlawful, dishonest, immoral or deceitful conduct [Chan-Robles].
Violations of RA 6713 and RA 3019 fall under unlawful conduct. Meanwhile, Concubinage, Grave Scandal, and Sexual Harassment fall under unlawful AND immoral conduct.

Rule 7.03 states:
A lawyer shall not engage in conduct that adversely reflects on his fitness to practice law, nor shall he whether in public or private life, behave in a scandalous manner to the discredit of the legal profession [Chan-Robles].

Surely, a well-known lawyer publicly admitting having an affair with her married driver-bodyguard AND giving him financial favors is scandalous. Now, add the fact that this driver-bodyguard collected drug payolas from prisoners.

What’s worse, the best de Lima could muster was “doubt” the allegations against Dayan. The operative word here is “doubt” and not “deny”: doubt is uncertainty of the truthfulness, while deny implies certainty of falsehood. Bar topnotcher like de Lima should be sufficiently familiar with the difference.

Now, tell me, how else can de Lima avoid disbarment or worse, prison?

Don’t tell me this is just a the “frailty of a woman”. [ThinkingPinoy.net]

DONT FORGET TO SHARE!

Did you like this post? Help ThinkingPinoy stay up! Even as little as 50 pesos will be a great help!

RELATED POSTS: