Skip to content
PAGE THREE

SC fines ex-court stenographer for voyeurism

SC fines ex-court stenographer for voyeurism
Text size

The Supreme Court (SC) found a former court interpreter guilty of gross immorality for secretly recording video and taking photos of female lawyers and court staff using a hidden camera disguised as a pen, according to a decision released by the tribunal.

In a 12-page ruling written by Associate Justice Antonio Kho Jr., the Supreme Court En Banc found Jan Paul Lugtu, former Court Interpreter III at Branch 12 of the Family Court in Olongapo City, guilty of gross immorality and ordered him to pay a P100,000 fine.

The case stemmed from an administrative complaint filed by Presiding Judge Gemma Theresa B. Hilario-Logronio, who reported that Lugtu used a concealed camera inside a black pen to record under the skirts and sensitive body parts of female employees, prosecutors, and attorneys inside the courtroom and staff room.

On 28 November 2022, court personnel caught Lugtu in the act of pointing the pen camera under the skirt of the Branch Clerk of Court.

When confronted, Lugtu admitted in open court that he used the device for voyeurism and stored the recordings on his laptop. A search of the device uncovered a memory card containing videos of female lawyers.

Lugtu was initially cited for direct contempt, served 72 hours in detention, and subsequently resigned.

However, the Judicial Integrity Board continued processing the complaint, citing that an employee’s resignation does not strip the judiciary of jurisdiction over administrative cases filed during their tenure.

In adopting the board’s recommendation, the High Court cited Canon II of the 2025 Code of Conduct and Accountability for Court Officials and Personnel, which classifies gross immorality as a serious offense and mandates that judiciary employees maintain the highest standards of propriety and decorum.

“Court officials and personnel must not only be free from any impropriety, but must also be perceived to be so, with respect to their professional and personal conduct,” the court stated, adding that all members of the judiciary bear a duty to preserve public trust.