Albert Jericho V.

Taruc
Loi Kristel M. Tubera
Republic Act No. 7610
AN ACT PROVIDING FOR STRONGER DETERRENCE AND SPECIAL PROTECTION
AGAINST CHILD ABUSE, EXPLOITATION AND DISCRIMINATION, AND FOR OTHER
PURPOSES
Title:
This Act shall be known as the "Special Protection of Children Against Abuse, Exploitation and
Discrimination Act."
Declaration of State Policy and Principles:
It is hereby declared to be the policy of the State to provide special protection to children from
all firms of abuse, neglect, cruelty exploitation and discrimination and other conditions, prejudicial their
development; provide sanctions for their commission and carry out a program for prevention and
deterrence of and crisis intervention in situations of child abuse, exploitation and discrimination. The
State shall intervene on behalf of the child when the parent, guardian, teacher or person having care or
custody of the child fails or is unable to protect the child against abuse, exploitation and discrimination or
when such acts against the child are committed by the said parent, guardian, teacher or person having care
and custody of the same.
It shall be the policy of the State to protect and rehabilitate children gravely threatened or
endangered by circumstances which affect or will affect their survival and normal development and over
which they have no control.
The best interests of children shall be the paramount consideration in all actions concerning them,
whether undertaken by public or private social welfare institutions, courts of law, administrative
authorities, and legislative bodies, consistent with the principle of First Call for Children as enunciated in
the United Nations Convention of the Rights of the Child. Every effort shall be exerted to promote the
welfare of children and enhance their opportunities for a useful and happy life.
TERMS DEFINED:
1. CHILDREN
Persons below eighteen (18) years of age;
Or those over but are unable to fully take care of themselves or protect themselves from abuse,
neglect, cruelty, exploitation or discrimination because of physical or mental disability or conditions;
(Section 3 (a), R.A. 7610)
2. CHILD ABUSE
Refers to maltreatment, whether habitual or not of the child which includes any of the following;
a. Psychological and physical abuse, neglect, cruelty, sexual abuse and emotional maltreatment;
b. Any act by deeds or words which debases, degrades or demeans the intrinsic worth and dignity
of a child as a human being;
c. Unreasonable deprivation of his basic needs for survival, such as food and shelter, or
d. Failure to immediately give medical treatment to an injured child resulting in serious
impairment of his growth and development or in his permanent incapacity or death;
3. CRUELTY

Discipline administered by a parent or legal guardian to a child does not constitute cruelty
provided it is reasonable in manner and moderate in degree and does not constitute physical or
psychological injury as defined herein;
4. PHYSICAL INJURY
Includes but is not limited to lacerations, fractured bones, burns, internal injuries.
5. PSYCHOLOGICAL INJURY
Means harm to a childs psychological or intellectual/functioning which may be exhibited by
severe anxiety, depression, withdrawal or outward aggressive behavior or a combination of said behavior.
May be demonstrated by a change in behavior, emotional response or cognition;
6. NEGLECT
Means failure to provide, for reasons other than poverty, adequate food, clothing, shelter, basic
education or medical care (to seriously endanger the physical, mental, social and emotional growth and
development of the child);
7. SEXUAL ABUSE
Includes the employment, use, persuasion, inducement, enticement or coercion of a child to
engage in, or assist another person to engage in, sexual intercourse or lascivious conduct or the
molestation, prostitution or incest with children;
8. LASCIVIOUS CONDUCT
Intentional touching with malice or lust, either directly or through clothing, of the genitalia, anus,
groin, breast, inner thigh, or buttocks or any part of the body.
9. EXPLOITATION
Hiring, employment, persuasion, inducement or coercion of a child to perform in obscene
exhibition and indecent shows, whether live or in video or film, or to pose or act as a model in obscene
publication or pornographic materials, or to sell or distribute said materials;
* Hiring and employment for purposes of prostitution now punishable under R.A. 9208 (Anti-Trafficking
in Persons Act of 2003)
CHILDREN IN INDIGENOUS CULTURAL COMMUNITIES

Refers to a native community whose members are bound by a common ethnic origin, language,
culture or religion or beliefs and whose existence as a distinct community with its own particular
characteristics;

Entitled to protection, survival and development consistent with the customs and traditions of
their respective communities.

CHILDREN IN SITUATIONS OF ARMED CONFLICT

Armed Conflict - refers to any conflict between government forces and organized groups which
involves the actual use of armed force, which disrupts normal, social, economic, political and cultural
activities in a specific geographical area.
Children as Zones of Peace

Children shall not be recruited as combatants or used as guides, couriers or spies.

Children shall be given special respect. They shall not be the object of attacks.

Facilitate reunion of families temporarily separated due to armed conflict

Rights of children taken into custody by government forces in an armed conflict area

-notify parents or guardian immediately

The delivery of basic social services such as education, primary health care and emergency relief
shall be kept unhampered and the safety and protection of service providers ensured;

Children centers such as schools and health clinics shall not be used for military purposes such as
command posts, barracks, detachments and supply depots.

Children arrested for reasons related to armed conflict are entitled to:

Immediate free legal assistance

Immediate notice of such arrest to the parents or legal guardians

Release to the custody of the DSWD within 24 hours

The barangay chairman shall immediately submit to the municipal social welfare and
development office the names of children affected by war in their community.

LABOR RELATED OFFENSES COMMITTED AGAINST CHILDREN, AS AMENDED BY R.A.

7658, FURTHER AMENDED BY R.A. 9231

General Rule: Children below fifteen (15) years of age shall not be employed.

Exceptions:
When a child works directly under the sole responsibility of his parents and legal
guardian and where only members of the employers family are employed

Employment must not endanger life, safety, nor impairs normal development.

Parent or legal guardian shall provide the said child with the prescribed primary and/or secondary
education.

When a childs employment or participation in public entertainment or information through

cinema, theater, radio or television is essential;

Employment contract is included by the childs parents or legal guardian, with the express
agreement of the child concerned, if possible, and the approval of the DOLE.
Strict compliance in the following requirements:

Employer shall ensure the protection, health, safety, morals and normal development of the child

Employer shall institute measures to prevent the childs exploitation or discrimination taking into
account the system and level of re-numeration and the duration and arrangement of the working
time.

Employer shall formulate and implement, subject to the approval and supervision of competent
authorities, a continuing program for training and skills acquisition of the child.

OTHER ACTS OF ABUSE

May be committed by:
Any parent who commits any other acts of child abuse, such as:
a. Conceals or abandons the child with intent to make such child lose his civil status.
b. Abandons the child under such circumstances as to deprive him of the love, care and protection
he needs.
c. Neglects the child by not giving him the education which the familys situation in life and
financial conditions permit.
d. Fails or refuses, without justifiable ground, to enroll the child as required by Article 72.
e. Causes, abates or permits the truancy of the child from the school where he is enrolled.
Truancy as herein used means absence without cause for more than twenty school days, not necessarily
consecutive.

It shall be the duty of the teacher in charge to report to the parents the absences of the child the
moment these exceed five (5) school days.
f. Improperly exploits the child by using him, directly or
indirectly, such as for purposes of begging and other acts which are inimical to his interest and welfare.
g. Inflicts cruel and unusual punishment upon the child or deliberately subjects him to
indignations and other excessive chastisement that embarrass or humiliate him.
h. Causes or encourages the child to lead an immoral or dissolute life
i. Permits the child to possess, handle or carry a deadly weapon, regardless of its ownership.
Parents as herein used shall include the guardian and the head of the institution or foster home
which has custody of the child.
j. Allows or requires the child to drive without a license or with license which the parent knows to
have been illegally procured. If the motor vehicle driven by the child belongs to the parent, it shall be
presumed that he permitted or ordered the child to drive.
Any person who shall keep or have in his company a minor, twelve (12) years or under or who is ten
(10) years or more his junior in any public or private place, hotel, motel, beer joint, disco, cabaret,
pension house, sauna or massage parlor, beach and/or other tourist resort or similar places.

Exception: Person related within the fourth degree of consanguinity or affinity or any bond
recognized by law, local customs and tradition or acts in the performance of a social, moral or
legal duty.
Any person who shall induce or deliver or offer a minor to anyone prohibited under R.A. 7610.

Any person, owner, manager or one trusted with the operation of any public or private place of
accommodation, whether for occupancy, food, drink, or otherwise, including residential places, who
allows any person to take along with him such place or places any minor herein described.
Any person who shall use, coerce, force or intimidate a street child or any other child to:
a. beg or use begging as a means of living;
b. act as conduit or middleman in drug trafficking or pushing;
c. conduct any illegal activities.
Who May File A Complaint?

Parents or Guardians

Ascendant or collateral relative within 3rd degree of consanguinity

Officer, social worker or representative of a licensed child-caring institution

Officer or social worker of the DSWD

Offended Party

Barangay Chairman, or

Three (3) concerned, responsible citizens where the offense was committed

Duty to Report

Teachers and administrators in public schools

Probation Officers

Government lawyers

Barangay officials

Correction officers and other government officials and employees whose work involves dealing
with children

Mandatory Reporting (IRR)

Attending physician and nurse

Head of public or private hospital, medical clinic and similar institution

*failure to report: fine > P2,000.00

Other Features:

Protective Custody of the Child

(DSWD will be free from any administrative, civil or criminal liability)

Confidentiality
Protection of victim from undue publicity (IRR)
Unauthorized disclosure of records: Fine>P2,400.00 or imprisonment 1 year or
both

CASES (RA 7610)

People vs. Salvino Sumingwa
G.R. No. 183619

October 13, 2009

FACTS:
Sometime in 1999, appellant showed his desire to touch the victim. He fondled the victims
breast. On the following month thereafter, appellant removed the garments of the victim and fondle his
penis until it ejaculated. Another incident was on August 2000, wherein the appellant grabbed and lie her
down and went top of her and then rubbed her penis into her vaginal orifice, and partially inserted his
penis into her vagina. The acts of the appellant continued wherein he would successfully rubbed his organ
to her genitalia without penetration. This time, the victim confided to her bestfriend.
On December 20, 2000, when the victim and her bestfriend were doing their school work,
appellant grabbed the victim, pulled her inside the house and kissed her on the lips.
The last incident occurred inside the comfort room of their house on May 27, 2001. When the
victim entered, appellant pulled down her short pants and panty, unzipped his trousers, brought out his
penis, then repeatedly rubbed it on her vagina while they were in a standing position.
The victim decided to report the sexual abuses to her grandmother who forthwith brought her to
the National Bureau of Investigation where she was examined by the medico-legal officer. It was found
during the examination that there were no extragenital physical injuries on the victims body but there
were old, healed, and incomplete hymenal lacerations.
Appellant denied all the accusations against him and stated an alibi in his defense.
ISSUE:
Is the appellant guilty of the abovementioned cases?
RULING:
In her direct testimony, the victim stated that appellant removed her short pants and panty, went
on top of her and rubbed his penis against her vaginal orifice. She resisted by crossing her legs but her
effort was not enough to prevent appellant from pulling her leg and eventually inserting his penis into her
vagina. Clearly, there was penetration.
It is noteworthy that appellant pulled victims leg, so that he could insert his penis into her vagina.
This adequately shows that appellant employed force in order to accomplish his purpose. Moreover, in
rape committed by a father against his own daughter, the formers moral ascendancy and influence over
the latter may substitute for actual physical violence and intimidation. The moral and physical dominion
of the father is sufficient to cow the victim into submission to his beastly desires, and no further proof
need be shown to prove lack of the victims consent to her own defilement.
While appellants conviction was primarily based on the prosecutions testimonial evidence, the
same was corroborated by physical evidence consisting of the medical findings of the medico-legal
officer that there were hymenal lacerations. When a rape victims account is straightforward and candid,
and is corroborated by the medical findings of the examining physician, the same is sufficient to support a
conviction for rape.

Aside from the fact of commission of rape, the prosecution likewise established that appellant is
the biological father of the victim and that the latter was then fifteen (15) 42 years old. Thus, the CA aptly
convicted him of qualified rape, defined and penalized by Article 266-B of the RPC.
In Criminal Case Nos. 1649 and 1654, although appellant was charged with qualified rape
allegedly committed on the second week of November 2000 and May 27, 2001, he should be convicted
with Acts of Lasciviousness committed against a child under Section 5(b), Article III of R.A. 7610. The
testified that in November 2000, while she and appellant were inside the bedroom, he went on top of her
and rubbed his penis against her vaginal orifice until he ejaculated. She likewise stated in open court that
on May 27, 2001, while inside their comfort room, appellant rubbed his penis against her vagina while
they were in a standing position. In both instances, there was no penetration, or even an attempt to insert
his penis into her vagina.
The aforesaid acts of the appellant are covered by the definitions of "sexual abuse" and
"lascivious conduct" under Section 2(g) and (h) of the Rules and Regulations on the Reporting and
Investigation of Child Abuse Cases promulgated to implement the provisions of R.A. 7610.
Appellants acts of embracing, dragging and kissing the in front of her friend annoyed the victim.
The filing of the case against appellant proved that the victim was disturbed, if not distressed by the acts
of appellant.
The appellant is guilty of the following qualified rape, acts of lasciviousness and unjust vexation.
Olivares vs. CA
GR 163866
FACTS:
Isidro Olivares was charged with violation of RA 7610 for touching the breast and kissing the lips
of Cristina Elitiong, a 16-year old high school student employed by the former in making sampaguita
garlands during weekends. The trial court found him guilty; affirmed by the CA. Petitioner now alleges
that his right to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation against him was violated for failure
to allege in the information the essential elements of the offense for which he is being charged.
ISSUE:
Whether or not Olivares can be charged with violation of RA 7610.
HELD:
Yes. The elements of sexual abuse under Section 5, Article III of R.A. 7610 are as follows:
1. The accused commits the act of sexual intercourse or lascivious conduct.
2. The said act is performed with a child exploited in prostitution or subjected to other sexual abuse.
3. The child, whether male or female, is below 18 years of age.
The first element obtains in this case. It was established beyond reasonable doubt that petitioner
kissed Cristina and touched her breasts with lewd designs as inferred from the nature of the acts
themselves and the environmental circumstances. The second element, i.e., that the act is performed with
a child exploited in prostitution or subjected to other sexual abuse, is likewise present.
Thus, a child is deemed subjected to other sexual abuse when the child indulges in lascivious
conduct under the coercion or influence of any adult. In this case, Cristina was sexually abused because
she was coerced or intimidated by petitioner to indulge in a lascivious conduct. Furthermore, it is
inconsequential that the sexual abuse occurred only once. As expressly provided in Section 3 (b) of R.A.
7610, the abuse may be habitual or not. It must be observed that Article III of R.A. 7610 is captioned as
Child Prostitution and Other Sexual Abuse because Congress really intended to cover a situation where
the minor may have been coerced or intimidated into lascivious conduct, not necessarily for money or
profit. The law covers not only child prostitution but also other forms of sexual abuse. As to the
contention that the minority of Cristina was not properly alleged in the information, the SC ruled that:
Petitioner was furnished a copy of the Complaint which was mentioned in the information, hence he was
adequately informed of the age of the complainant.
Amployo vs. People
GR 157718
FACTS:
Alvin Amployo was charged with violation of RA 7610 for touching, mashing and playing the
breasts of Kristine Joy Mosguera, an 8 year old Grade 3 pupil without her consent. Amployo contends
that the element of lewd design was not established since: (1) the incident happened at 7am, in a street
near the school with people around; (2) the breast of an 8 year old is still very much underdeveloped; and
(3) suppose h intentionally touched her breast, it was
merely to satisfy a silly whim. He also argues
that the resultant crime is only acts of lasciviousness under Art 336 RPC and not child abuse under RA
7610 as the elements thereof had not been proved.
ISSUES:
Whether or not lewd design was established.

Whether or not Amployo violated RA 7610.

HELD:
Before an accused can be convicted of child abuse through lascivious conduct on a minor below
12 years of age, the requisites for acts of lasciviousness under Article 336 of the RPC must be met in
addition to the requisites for sexual abuse under Section 5 of Rep. Act No. 7610.The first element is lewd
design.
The term lewd is commonly defined as something indecent or obscene; it is characterized by or
intended to excite crude sexual desire. That an accused is entertaining a lewd or unchaste design is
necessarily a mental process the existence of which can be inferred by overt acts carrying out such
intention, i.e., by conduct that can only be interpreted as lewd or lascivious. The presence or absence of
lewd designs is inferred from the nature of the acts themselves and the environmental circumstances.
What is or what is not lewd conduct, by its very nature, cannot be pigeonholed into a precise definition.
Lewd design was established. Amployo cannot take refuge in his version of the story as he has
conveniently left out details which indubitably prove the presence of lewd design. It would have been
easy to entertain the possibility that what happened was merely an accident if it only happened once.
Such is not the case, however, as the very same petitioner did the very same act to the very same victim in
the past.
The first element of RA 7610 obtains. Petitioners act of purposely touching Kristine Joys breasts
(sometimes under her shirt) amounts to lascivious conduct. The second element is likewise present. As
we observed in People v. Larin, Section 5 of Rep. Act No. 7610 does not merely cover a situation of a
child being abused for profit, but also one in which a child engages in any lascivious conduct through
coercion or intimidation. As case law has it, intimidation need not necessarily be irresistible. As to the
third element, there is no dispute that Kristine Joy is a minor, as she was only eight years old at the time
of the incident in question.
People vs. Abadies
July 11, 2002
FACTS:
Jose Abadies was charged with four counts of violation of RA 7610 for committing acts of
lasciviousness upon her 17 year old daughter, Rosalie, by kissing, mashing her breasts and touching her
private parts. Trial Court found him guilty. Abadies asserts that he was impliedly pardoned by Rosalie in
not immediately telling her mother about the incidents.
ISSUE:
Whether or not Abadies is guilty of violating RA 7610.
HELD:
Yes. Complainants failure to disclose about her misfortune to her mother does not destroy her
credibility. Complainant explained that she did not tell her mother about her ordeal because she was afraid
of the accused. Thus, although accused was not armed nor did he threaten complainant, his moral
ascendancy over her is a sufficient substitute for the use of force or intimidation as required by Art336
RPC (elements of acts of lasciviousness).
As to the implied pardon, such will not hold. The supposed pardon cannot be implied from the
fact that the complainant did not immediately reveal to her mother her defloration. It was her fear of
accused which restrained complainant from reporting the incidents to her mother. Moreover, Article 344
of the RPC and Section 5, Rule 110 of the Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure provide that the pardon
must be express and cannot be based on hazy deduction.
Sanchez vs. People
G.R. No. 179090
June 5, 2009
FACTS:
Appellant was charged with the crime of Other Acts of Child Abuse in an Information dated
August 29, 2001 which reads:
The undersigned, Second Assistant Provincial Prosecutor, hereby accuses Leonilo Sanchez alias
Nilo of Lajog, Clarin, Bohol of the crime of Other Acts of Child Abuse, committed as follows:
That on or about the 2nd day of September, 2000 in the municipality of Clarin, province of
Bohol, Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, acting as a Family Court, the
above-named accused, with intent to abuse, exploit and/or to inflict other conditions prejudicial to the
child's development, did then and there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously abuse physically one, a
sixteen (16) year old minor, by hitting her thrice in the upper part of her legs, and which acts are
prejudicial to the child-victim's development which acts are not covered by the Revised Penal Code, as
amended, but the same are covered by Art. 59, par. 8 of P.D. No. 603 as amended; to the damage and
prejudice of the offended party in the amount to be proved during the trial.

The appellant argues that the injuries inflicted by him were minor in nature that it is not
prejudicial to the child-victims development and therefore P.D. No. 603 is not applicable and he should
be charged under the Revised Penal Code for slight physical injuries.
ISSUE:
Whether or not P.D. 603 as amended is applicable to the case at hand.
HELD:
In this case, the applicable laws are Article 59 of P.D. No. 603 and Section 10(a) of R.A. No.
7610. Section 10(a) of R.A. No. 7610 provides:
SECTION 10. Other Acts of Neglect, Abuse, Cruelty or Exploitation and Other
Conditions
Prejudicial to the Child's Development. (a) Any
person who shall commit any other acts of child
abuse, cruelty or
exploitation or be responsible for other conditions prejudicial to the child's
development including those covered by Article 59 of Presidential Decree
No. 603, as
amended, but not covered by the Revised Penal Code, as
amended, shall suffer the penalty of
prision mayor in its minimum period.
As gleaned from the foregoing, the provision punishes not only those enumerated under Article
59 of Presidential Decree No. 603, but also four distinct acts, i.e., (a) child abuse, (b) child cruelty, (c)
child exploitation and (d) being responsible for conditions prejudicial to the childs development. The
Rules and Regulations of the questioned statute distinctly and separately defined child abuse, cruelty and
exploitation just to show that these three acts are different from one another and from the act prejudicial
to the childs development. Contrary to petitioners assertion, an accused can be prosecuted and be
convicted under Section 10(a), Article VI of Republic Act No. 7610 if he commits any of the four acts
therein. The prosecution need not prove that the acts of child abuse, child cruelty and child exploitation
have resulted in the prejudice of the child because an act prejudicial to the development of the child is
different from the former acts.
Moreover, it is a rule in statutory construction that the word or is a disjunctive term signifying
dissociation and independence of one thing from other things enumerated. It should, as a rule, be
construed in the sense which it ordinarily implies. Hence, the use of or in Section 10(a) of Republic Act
No. 7610 before the phrase be responsible for other conditions prejudicial to the childs development
supposes that there are four punishable acts therein. First, the act of child abuse; second, child cruelty;
third, child exploitation; and fourth, being responsible for conditions prejudicial to the childs
development. The fourth penalized act cannot be interpreted, as petitioner suggests, as a qualifying
condition for the three other acts, because an analysis of the entire context of the questioned provision
does not warrant such construal.
Appellant contends that, after proof, the act should not be considered as child abuse but merely as
slight physical injuries defined and punishable under Article 266 of the Revised Penal Code. Appellant
conveniently forgets that when the incident happened, VVV was a child entitled to the protection
extended by R.A. No. 7610, as mandated by the Constitution. As defined in the law, child abuse includes
physical abuse of the child, whether the same is habitual or not. The act of appellant falls squarely within
this definition.
We, therefore, cannot accept appellant's contention. Acts committed contrary to the provisions of
Section 10(a) in relation to Sections 3(a) and 3(b) No. 1 of Rep. Act No. 7610 and Sec. 59(8) of PD 603,
amended.
Jumaquio vs. Villarosa
GR No. 165924
2009
The case originates from an incident that happened on August 2, 2003, when petitioner Resty
Jumaquio allegedly threatened and assaulted two young men, then ages 13 and 17. On account of that
altercation, two separate Information were filed with the RTC of San Jose City, for two distinct offenses
of child abuseCriminal Case No. SJC-78-04 for child abuse committed through the use of threatening
words, and Criminal Case No. SJC-79-04 for child abuse through the infliction of physical injuries. Both
were upheld by the Supreme Court.
In the first information, petitioner is charged with child abuse by uttering debasing, demeaning
and degrading words to the minor. In the second, he is charged with child abuse by inflicting physical
injuries that debase, demean and degrade the dignity of the children as human beings.
RELATED NEWS (RA 7610)
Call center agent arrested for RA 7610 violation
CEBU, Philippines - A call center agent was arrested Sunday afternoon after a nine-year-old girl
reported being touched in her private parts while in a mall. The suspect, identified as Barry Escarda
Rastauro, 31, resides in Deca Homes, Dumlog, Talisay City. The victim is from Barangay Sambag II,
Cebu City.

According to the victim's mother, she was in line to pay when her child ran towards her and
reported that a stranger touched her private parts.The mother, with the help of the mall's security guard,
looked after the said suspect and immediately arrested him.
According to PO2 Venus Tampus, Women's Desk Officer of Carbon Police Station, the suspect
did not deny the accusation. Rastauro even admitted it was the fourth time he touched children's private
parts.
Charges of act of lasciviousness and violation of Special Protection of Children Against Abuse,
Exploitation and Discrimination Act or R.A. 7610 will be filed against Rastauro, who is detained at
Carbon Police Station.
Freddie Aguilar off the hook from child abuse raps
Legendary folk singer Freddie Aguilar was cleared of the child abuse charges against him. The
Quezon City Prosecutors Office dismissed the case of child abuse against Aguilar for insufficiency of
evidence and lack of legal personality of the complainants.
In a resolution, Assistant City Prosecutor Edgardo Saplala cleared Aguilar of the child abuse
complaint as the complainants have no personal knowledge as to whether or not Aguilar was having
sexual manipulation and intercourse with his 16-year-old wife.
The charges of corruption of minor against Aguilars in-laws were also dismissed by Saplala for
lack of probable cause.
Last year, lawyer Fernando Perito said he felt outraged, scandalized and offended by Aguilars
sexual exhibition by bragging that his girlfriend, who is now his wife, was just sixteen years old. He filed
a qualified seduction against the singer. Atty. Perito was joined by Peter Sesbreno and Cristine Joy
Bangalisan in his complaint.
As a member of the Integrated Bar of the Philippines, Atty. Perito said he has a moral obligation
to sue Aguilar. He said he has an obligation and duty as a lawyer to do what is right and to prevent what
is wrong.
Perito, Sesbreno and Bangalisan later amended their qualified seduction complaint to violation of
Republic Act 7610 or anti-child abuse act. The lawyer said the 60-year-old Aguilar committed child abuse
when he allegedly used his popularity and his money to woo a minor from a very poor family with a
promise of marriage once she reaches the age of 18.
On December 2013, Saplala received an affidavit of desistance executed and signed by
complainant Peter Sesbreno. Saplala said in his resolution that the complainants allegations were clearly
based on surmises, gossips and speculations which in law are not evidence to support the instant cases
filed against the respondents, to stand even a day in court.
BUTUAN CITY (UPDATE - 1:34 p.m., July 1, 2015)
Parents, with the support of teachers, filed a child abuse complaint with the local police against
GMA-7 news reporter Julius Segovia on Saturday afternoon last week for allegedly humiliating in public
two nine-year old pupils at a campus journalism workshop.
After initially keeping silent on the issue, Segovia came out with a statement on Wednesday to
"categorically deny all accusations hurled against me" and apologizing "for the
inconvenience that I
might have caused anyone."
"We filed a police complaint under RA 7610 against Julius Segovia after he publicly humiliated
and insulted our nine-year old child and another pupil during the workshop last Saturday. We intend to
use this police complaint to file a case in court, as our child was traumatized after the incident. She
requested not to go to school because she feels embarrassed about having to face other students," said
Cheery Ann, the mother of one of the humiliated children.
The police blotter record (photographed by Erwin Mascarinas, above), with entry number 095,
was filed at around 8:00 pm of June 27, 2015 at the Butuan City Police Station 1 under the Women and
Children Welfare Desk.
In the blotter it was claimed that Julius Anthony M. Segovia humiliated the victims in front of the
participants, and uttered demeaning words during the seminar workshop on campus journalism held at
Inland Convention Center.
Segovia was said to have told the child "if you don't do your work, you might as well get out. If
not, let me talk to your adviser. Where are they?" Pointing his fingers at the children, the speaker then
allegedly spoke into the microphone and pointed again at the children asking for the advisers, and asking
them to go out.
Arcelie Cultura, Grade 6 adviser of Doongan Elementary School, disclosed that she was just two
meters away from the girl when it happened. "At first I did not pay that much attention to it, then I saw
Segovia with an angry facial expression and he was obviously irritated. He approached the children and
said something to them. He came back later, this time angrier than the first time, and with a much loaded
voice. I tried to ask: What's wrong? He said bastos (rude) daw. The child was very much humiliated, as

around 400 participants were looking at her," Cultura said. Cultura further related that Segovia stated, "'if
the girls were not doing anything, they should leave.' He asked if they were just waiting for snack break.
Who is the teacher in charge of that girl? Pointing to the child, he was saying 'Kung bastusan lang ang
gusto ninyo mag bastusan na tayo (If we want to be rude here, we can certainly play the rude game).'"
"The children paid P2,800 each, and the teachers P3,000 to attend this workshop. How dare he say they
were just there for the snacks, which they can afford beyond what we paid for the event," Cultura
continued.
One of the two children, a nine-year old Grade 4 pupil at Butuan City SPED Center, with her
parents' consent, elaborated on what happened. "I was excited so I took photos of our speaker. I did not
realize that he appeared to be sleeping in the photo. We were laughing at our table, but not at him. He
approached us and
demanded that the photo be deleted. I was so afraid because he was angry, and I
felt embarrassed as everyone was looking at me," said the child.
Explanation and apology
"As parents, we are shocked at how an event meant to educate could hurt our daughter. When we
arrived at the workshop venue at around 4:20 in the afternoon, we immediately noticed a crowd outside
the hall and within that crowd I found my child crying and the teachers trying to calm her down. As a
mother, I immediately hugged my child. She was shaking and crying hard," said the mother, who added
that at first they only wanted to request for an explanation from the speaker and the organizer of the
event.
"The organizers and Segovia made us wait for three hours. He never faced us to give his side of
the story and to clarify what really happened. We initially did not intend to file a complaint but he
[Segovia] just made us look like fools," the mother added.
Cultura added to the statement of the mother, pointing out that the matter might have been easily
resolved if Segovia faced the parents and the teachers who were waiting to hear his side.
"One of his topics was all about media ethics, yet there he was not showing the right ethics in
front of the children and teachers. We left the place at almost 8:00 in the evening, all the
while waiting
to hear his side or a possible apology, but he never came out," the Grade 6 adviser said.
Teachers and Students walk out
Several teachers from different schools who also felt offended by the humiliating comments from
the speaker directed at the child, numbering about 80 in all, decided to walk out of the convention hall.
"The narrations about what happened are all true. He humiliated the two children in front of
everyone in the hall. The sad part is that he did not only insult the kids, but he insulted the teachers as
well," said Agan Mark Carag, a teacher at Agusan National High School and advisor of the campus organ.
Carag pointed out that, together with other teachers and students, they all stood up and left the hall after
they felt humiliated.
"We [teachers] paid P3,000 pesos to attend the seminar but it turned out to be a humiliating
experience. We felt embarrassed by the statements of Mr. Segovia. He also implied in his statement that
we were Bisaya in how we speak and write our English. Who does he think he is?" Carag asked.
Allan Baliling, a teacher in Special Program in the Arts and Analyn Pamesa, adviser on creative
writing also from ANHS, echoed the statement of their fellow teacher, pointing out that the only
unfortunate part was that nobody was able to video the incident because they were all shocked at what the
broadcast reporter said.
The organizer of the event: Center for the Professional Advancement of Educators, stated over the
telephone that they are declining to comment on the incident and would, in the meantime, wait for the
advice of their lawyer. For its part, GMA management is looking into the matter, said Cel Amores,
Assistant Vice President for Regional News operations of GMA News and Public Affiars, without
elaborating further.
Segovia's statement
A message was sent to Segovia using his Facebook account on Sunday to obtain his side of the
story, but he did not reply immediately. On Wednesday, however, he issued the following statement:
"I am breaking my silence in response to the insinuations thrown against me regarding
the
alleged incident in Butuan.
"I categorically deny all accusations hurled against me. It is not my character to humiliate nor to
abuse children as I also have nephews and nieces that I love dearly. I have nothing to gain if I do such
actions.
"I have been unfairly judged and subjected to bashing in social media these past few days. But I
chose to take the higher road and kept my silence.
"However, my attention was called by my friends and family who are greatly affected and hurt by
all these accusations.

"I apologize for the inconvenience that I might have accused anyone. I thank all my family and
all my friends who expressed their concern and love for me at this moment."