Kho v Halili
CA-GR SP No. 121130
Hayden Kho, Jr. (petitioner) is a duly licensed physician.
Katrina Iren P. Halili (respondent) is a movie and
television actress. On August 22, 2007, petitioner
performed liposuction on respondent at BMGI's
Greenhills, San Juan branch. Weeks after the aesthetic
procedure was performed, petitioner and respondent
developed an amorous relationship. Sometime in
December 2008, news about a sex video involving herein
parties started circulating in public.
When asked by respondent about the existence of the
rumored video, petitioner denied the same assuring
respondent that no such video exists. However, on May
18, 2009, respondent was able to watch the rumored
sex video online in a file-sharing website. Outraged by
the existence of the said sex video and the public release
of the same, respondent filed a complaint against
petitioner before the Board of Medicine (Board) for
immorality and dishonorable/unethical conduct.
By Decision of November 20, 2009, the Board found
petitioner guilty as charged. It ruled that while it may be
true that the act of videotaping the intimate act
between the petitioner and respondent is not in any way
related to the practice of medicine, it would be very
difficult to disassociate the person from the act itself.
in its decision dated November 20, 2009, the Board
included as one of the issues to be resolved the
following: “Whether or not the act of Dr. Kho having
sexual relationship with his patient, Ms. Halili constitutes
unprofessional and unethical conduct.” Apparently the
issue tackled by the Board in its decision which
petitioner presently assails is not unrelated to the other
issues defined in the pre-trial order. The question on
whether the act of petitioner in having sexual
relationship with his patient constitutes an
unprofessional and dishonorable conduct is one which is
closely related to the main issues of the case which has
for its ground the immorality and commission of
dishonorable conduct by the petitioner.
Petitioner's second assigned error touches on PRC's
alleged failure to rectify the Board's decision. He
essentially argues that there is no evidence to show that
the videotaping was made within two weeks from the
liposuction procedure and within the time when a
doctor-patient relationship still existed between the
petitioner and respondent. Moreover, petitioner
theorizes that he should not be blamed for the criminal
and malicious acts of other persons who stole his laptop
and hard drive and thereafter disseminated the subject
sex videos.
This does not persuade, during the hearing conducted by
the Board, petitioner was asked when the subject videos
were taken and he replied “I'm not sure, around
September.” Since the liposuction procedure was done
on August 22, 2007, it stands to reason that the Board
was correct in concluding that the subject video must
have been taken after, specifically more or less two (2)
weeks after the liposuction.
Besides, it is immaterial whether or not the sex video
was recorded two (2) weeks, or at some other point in
time, after the liposuction procedure was made since
the Board's finding was merely in support of its ruling
vis-a-vis the third issue tackled in their decision, i.e.
Whether or not the act of videotaping the intimate act
between Dr. Kho and Ms. Halili constitutes a grossly
immoral and dishonorable act. Surely, the act of secretly
recording one's sexual reprehensible and dishonorable
conduct regardless of the period of time the same was
made.
Furthermore, petitioner’s insistence that he was not the
one responsible for the unlawful release and public
dissemination of the subject sex videos should therefore
be appreciated in his favor is an argument utterly
misplaced. Insofar as this case is concerned, it matters
not who stole and released the subject videos, what is
crucial here is that it was established that petitioner
surreptitiously recorded his intimate encounters with
the respondent without the latter's knowledge and
consent.