In the instant case, the Commission noted that complainant De Vera

categorically and positively identified Alcantara as the one who molested

him. This, in itself is a strong evidence against Alcantara, as against the
latters bare denial. The affirmative testimony of the complainant De Vera
that Alcantara molested hum must be deemed to outweigh that which is
merely a negative testimony of Alcantara. (People vs. Clores, 184 SCRA 638)
Besides, a mere denial of Alcantara on the complaint against him is only self-
serving. Xxx Moreover, it is of record that the prosecution witness Aldrin dela
Cruz, schoolmate of De Vera, corroborated the testimony of De Vera as to the
molestation committed by Alcantara against the latter. x x x

It must be emphasized that in the administrative offense of sexual

harassment, it is not a requirement that the offender must have moral
ascendancy in order to be liable for said offense. As long as a government
employee committed an act, or a series of acts, involving any unwelcome
sexual advance, request or demand for a sexual favor, or other verbal or
physical behavior of sexual harassment. Thus, whether Alcantara exercises
moral ascendancy over De Vera or not would not take Alcantara out of the
coverage of the administrative disciplinary rules on sexual harassment.

Also, it is not necessary that the act of sexual harassment be

committed within the confines of the school premises. Under the rules, the
administrative offense of sexual harassment may be committed in any place
where the parties were found as a result of educational relations or functions.
The fact that the sexual harassment act was committed during the schools
science camp activity, it is undeniable that the sexual harassment was
committed in a function which is related to an educational institution, even if
the science camp was done in Antipolo, which is outside of the school
compound. X x x (Alcantara, Joseph dela Torre, CSC Resolution No. 08-0610
dated April 10, 2008)