“So, iba naman yun sa alam ni Katrina.”

Ang tinutukoy na dance video ni Atty. Palad ay ang kumalat ding video nina Katrina at Hayden sa Internet, kunsaan nagsasayaw sila sa saliw ng awiting “Careless Whisper.”

Giit ni Atty. Palad, hindi kailanman sinabi ni Katrina sa korte na alam niyang nire-record ni Hayden ang sexual act nila noon at lalong hindi niya sinabi na pinayagan niya ito.

Malinaw raw itong nakasaad sa naunang desisyon na inilabas ng Pasig Regional Trial Court noong 2010:

"The first witness, private complainant, Katrina Irene Pe Halili, testified that the recording by the accused of the sex video was done without her knowledge and consent and that she suffered civil damages as a result of the acts committed by the accused.”

Ito naman ang bahagi ng desisyon kunsaan sa palagay nila ay alam ni Katrina ang pagre-record ng sex video nila ni Hayden:

"The court also observed during the ocular inspection proceedings that when the model camera used to simulate the actual sex video recording was placed in a position so near the television set such that it was partially hidden, the video recorded showed parts of the television set beside it.

“It was only after the camera was positioned in such a way that it was clearly visible that the television set partial impression was no longer recorded. 

“Since the actual sex video recording did not show any part of the television set, the camera used must have been placed in a position where it was not hidden from private complainant Halili.

“It is apparent to the court during the ocular inspection that the video camera was placed beside the television set which, as is the nature of the television sets, was situated in a prominent and highly visible portion of the room in relation to the bed where the sexual act occurred.

“The camera was sufficiently elevated; and not hidden from view as it was directly in front of the bed, and less than six (6) feet away from the same.

“Taking into consideration the nearness and location of the video camera, in addition to the fact that private complainant Halili has knowledge that the accused took video footages of the trysts with her on three previous occasions (although these were not actual acts of coitus, albeit nonetheless sexual revealing), it will be difficult for an impartial mind to persist with the naïve thought that the video recording of their sexual intercourse was unknown to the private complainant.)”

DEMURRER EVIDENCE. Ayon kay Attorney Palad, hindi kailanman naupo sa witness stand si Hayden.

Aniya, “After the prosecution has rested its case, the accused can file a demurrer to evidence, similar to a motion to dismiss the case.”

Ang demurrer to evidence, ayon sa phbar.org, ay “objection or exception by one of the parties in an action at law, to the effect that the evidence which his adversary produced is insufficient in point of law (whether true or not) to make out his case or sustain the issue. The demurrer challenges the sufficiency of the plaintiff's evidence to sustain a verdict."

Pagpapatuloy ng abugado ni Katrina, “Nag-present kami ng evidence, ang ginawa nila, nag-file sila ng demurrer evidence.

“Hindi umabot sa puntong naupo si Hayden sa korte.

“Sa PRC [Professional Regulation Commission], bawal ang demurrer for evidence. Dahil bawal, hindi nila napa-dismiss.”

Ang tinutukoy ni Atty. Palad ay ang pag-revoke ng PRC ng license ni Hayden bilang medical practitioner.

KATRINA’S REACTION. Tinanong din ng PEP si Atty. Palad kung ano ang naging reaksiyon o damdamin ng kanyang kliyente, ang aktres na si Katrina Halili, sa muling pagkaka-dismiss ng kaso nito laban kay Hayden sa Court of Appeals.

“Okay lang, mahalaga yung natanggal ang license ni Hayden,” sagot niya.

Ngunit kahit na-dismiss na ng dalawang beses ang kasong isinampa ni Katrina laban kay Hayden, tuloy-tuloy pa rin daw itong isusulong at ilalaban ng kampo ng aktres.

Sabi ni Atty. Palad, “Definitely, magpa-file ng motion for reconsideration sa Court of Appeals, then sa Supreme Court.