Katrina, Hayden In Pari Delicto!


                                  katrinahalili-1[1]                  Katrina and Hayden were in bed sharing their tryst with no matrimonial bond but despite this, Katrina’s employer GMA-7,  was behind its  “shining  star” and so was the entire movie industry which tried to ram through the throat of the  public a misleading one liner that: “Katrina was the victim”.   

          She was not a victim, though both of them were abusers and the unwitting public, their victims.  Katrina to some, is a heroine of the telenovela, Gagambino who fought evil to save mankind.  She had victimized the public into believing that her persona  is virtuously  wholesome, sensually of course it is.   Dr. Kho is  a physician with some kinky habit of taping his every sexual encounter with his partners.  His previous talent manager,  Ms. Solis admits this in a television interview.    He had victimized the public into looking at him as a physician and not as a pervert.

        Katrina models see through lingerie and skimpy bikinis and when you go on ramp to sell these products, the model becomes the most desirable product,  the “band-aid” size bikini she wears is nowhere within the index of any consumer’s  preference.  If she advertises that much she could also sell.  Was the tryst with Hayden an acceptance of the product she was selling and the secret tape,  Hayden’s business concept of cashing on in an investment?   

       Was she wronged because her consent was absent on the taping though the sexual liaison was consensual?

        Indeed , she was robbed of her privacy.  But would  she be appeased with the other “disgorging” the profit of the sex videos in her favor or does  she desire more?  If all these brouhaha are geared towards making the other scoundrel pay-up for the “tarnished image” and “privacy violation”  of the “victim”, then the settlement along these gridlines becomes private affair and the public had been had once again.

       They were both in pari delicto and no one should be allowed to profit from each other.

        Public appeasement will only come if Mr. Kho is stripped off of his license as a physician being a purveyor of porn and Ms. Halili is sanctioned for her “indecorous” behavior by the very people behind her.  But her employer, as aptly observed by DJB,  has a daily variety show of scantily clad young girls gyrating in front of television cameras beamed throughout the country  and certain parts of the world.  This variety show could be the very backbone of its rating and therefore its huge source of income.  The paradox is, the more Katrinas  they have, the more the money and the fun.

       Let us wait and see how this scenario pans out in the next few days.  But the prediction of  DJB  entitled Live by Pudenda, Die by Pudenda  below only confirms that the public  will again be the helpless victims.

      “What Hayden Kho and Katrina Halili are suffering now is merely the consequence of that tragically false presumption. We owe them pity, but that is all. I don’t see why either of them should be held up as examples of causes worth fighting for. I’m cold to them both and am willing to predict that  Katrina Halili and Hayden Kho, and those behind, in front, under and over them both will all soon realize they ought  to just patch this all up quietly and continue in the business of making money by selling made up flesh doctored and dolled up for ramp, runway and studio.  The alternative of course is an escalating war of dueling videos,  in which videos of other famous people doing it could hit the World Wide Web”.

9 thoughts on “Katrina, Hayden In Pari Delicto!

  1. I posted my thoughts on the matter over at DJB’s site re: “pudenda.” If I may ask, is there an existing law against non-consensual video recording of a consensual sex (or “auto-voyeurism”)? If there is no crime and if the man didn’t make the private video public will he still be liable for inflicting psychological violence on the complainant?

  2. Baycas,

    It is the main reason why Congress is trying to rush up the passage of the Anti-Voyeurism law to address the issue because we have no law on “voyeurism”.

    But the Revised Penal Code Book II, in article 201 (b) provides sanctions to:

    “Those who, in theaters, fairs, cinematographs or any other place, exhibit, indecent or immoral plays, scenes, acts or shows, whether live or in film, which are prescribed by virtue hereof, shall include those which (1) glorify criminals or condone crimes; (2) serve no other purpose but to satisfy the market for violence, lust or pornography; (3) offend any race or religion; (4) tend to abet traffic in and use of prohibited drugs; and (5) are contrary to law, public order, morals, and good customs, established policies, lawful orders, decrees and edicts;

    (3) Those who shall sell, give away or exhibit films, prints, engravings, sculpture or literature which are offensive to morals. (As amended by PD Nos. 960 and 969).

    These provisions are all-embracing to cover the situation of the sex video of Katrina and Kho. He admitted having made the sex video with Katrina without her knowledge The law will presume that he was the one who caused the distribution thereof.

    R.A. 9262 “An Act Defining Violence Against Women, etc. was promulgated March 2004. There is not much case law in it.

    The law defines violence against women this way:

    “Psychological violence” refers to acts or omissions causing or likely to cause mental or emotional suffering of the victim such as but not limited to intimidation, harassment, stalking, damage to property, public ridicule or humiliation, repeated verbal abuse and mental infidelity. It includes causing or allowing the victim to witness the physical, sexual or psychological abuse of a member of the family to which the victim belongs, or to witness pornography in any form or to witness abusive injury to pets or to unlawful or unwanted deprivation of the right to custody and/or visitation of common children.”

    The law continues to enumerate the various acts that constitute physical and emotional violence against women and children, but not none of those enumerations refer to a man videotaping a sexual congress with a woman without the knowledge of the latter and then distribute the video for public consumption.

    It does not exactly cover the situation of Katrina and Kho. I am just amazed of how people would drumbeat this particular piece of legislation as providing the muscle to beat up Kho to the pulp.

    The provisions of the Revised Penal Code are quite inclusive when it speaks of “exhibit films” that are offensive to morals compared to R.A 9262. The Courts can interpret the provision as all-encompassing to
    include the objectionable internet video.

    This is an interesting legal case. If am the prosecutor I would charge Kho for violation of the provisions of the Revised Penal Code rather than under the provisions of RA 9262.

    Then Katrina can sue for civil damage for emotional distress and the same can be fully supported by the provisions of the New Civil Code on Human Relations.

    Then she can go to the Professional Regulation Commissions to strip Mr. Kho of his medical license.

    My classmate, Atty. Lorna Kapunan would have her hands full defending her high profile client.

  3. These are my thoughts (updated)…

    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…

    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.

    (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.

    —–

    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

  4. thanks a lot, jcc.

    it’s possible that Isabela Rep. Giorgidi Aggabao could be right when he suggested that a civil suit (against HK) would have better chances of prospering than a criminal case.

  5. Baycas,

    Let me take the other position.

    Mr. Kho had taped his sexual encounter with Ms. Katrina. It is an illicit recording and therefore cannot be copyrighted. As he was in possession of it, the law will presume that he was the one who caused its distribution or uploaded it to the internet. He claims now that his “hard drive” was stolen, then he has to explain, as to who stole it, when and how, did he report the incident to the authorities? As of now, his erstwhile friend, Mr. Chua had denied to have something to do with it.

    If he had taped his sexual encounter with every woman partner he had, this is indicative enough of perversion. It would be easy for any judge to conclude that the upload of the video to the internet is a continuation of that perversion.

    That he would not have volitionally uploaded the sex video because he was not well-endowed, assumes that his motivation for the upload was his “apparatus”. It was his conquest of a sex symbol that everyone had fantasized about and the money that goes with it that drove him to upload the video. It is also very easy to consider this argument as an “afterthought”.

    No need to produce the original recording. The digital copies are self-authenticating. The video is clear enough that it was Ms. Katrina and Mr. Kho who appeared in the video. The duo have never denied that they were not the ones in the video. Ms. Katrina admitted on TV that “masyado siyang nababoy ng makita niya ang video” and Kho said that he was sorry about the video”.

  6. JCC,

    Thanks again. The case is still evolving and our contrasting theories, I think, are possible. We’ll leave them at that for now.

    Btw, Mr. Gagelonia has an interesting post of his friend’s story on the case. Also, Ms. Maki Pulido has this in her notebook: “Hidden Cam.”

    We’ll be reading, hearing and watching more…
    🙂

  7. JCC,

    Thanks again. The case is still evolving and our contrasting theories, I think, are possible. We’ll leave them at that for now.

    Btw, Mr. Gagelonia has an interesting post of his friend’s story on the case.

    We’ll be reading, hearing and watching more…
    🙂

  8. If an uknown beauty had sex with Mr. Kho for fun or profit we have no problem describing her person in a language all known too well, “Pok-Pok”. But if a frontline asset of a big TV-Network did the same behavior with Mr. Kho, we call her a “victim of injustice”.

    Hay buhay Pinoy, totally out of sync.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s