ISIDRO OLIVAREZ, versus G.R. No. 163866 before going home. He arrived at 12:30 P.M.

before going home. He arrived at 12:30 P.M. The next several days were uneventful
COURT OF APPEALS and for him until his laundrywoman Maritess told him that there was a complaint against
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, him at the barangay office. A meeting took place between him and the girls family in
Respondents. Promulgated: the presence of the barangay authorities. The girls mother was demanding P30,000
July 29, 2005 for the settlement of the case, but he refused to cave in and told a barangay official
Jaime Ramos that he would rather see his accusers in court than give a centavo
because he did not commit the crime.
Facts:
Issue:
The offended party Cristina Elitiong was a 16-year old high school student who with
her brothers were employed by the accused, 64-year old Isidro Olivarez, in the
WON The Honorable Court of Appeals committed grave abuse of discretion in not
making of sampaguita garlands. For one year she had been reporting for work during
holding that the essential elements in Violation of Section 5, Article III of Republic Act
weekends at the residence of the accused. Within the compound and at about three
7610, which are age of the offended party and that she is an abused or exploited
armslength from the main door of the house was her workplace.At about 11:30
child as defined in the law, not having been alleged in the Information,
oclock in the morning of July 20, 1997, Cristina, her two brothers Macoy and
petitioner/accused cannot be found guilty of said offense and must be acquitted.
Dodong, and one named Liezel were at their work when the accused who was near
the main door called for her. She dutifully approached him. The accused asked her if
Actions of the courts:
she had told her mother that he gave her money, and when she said that she did
not, he embraced her and held her breast. The workers were facing the street so
RTC: Found Olivarez guilty of violating Section 5 of R.A. 7610 and sentenced him to
that the two were not seen. He pulled her to the kitchen and, closing the kitchen
suffer an indeterminate penalty of imprisonment from eight (8) years and one (1)
door, kissed her on the lips. She pushed him away and went back to her station. Her
day of prision mayor as minimum to seventeen (17) years, four (4) months and one
brother Macoy saw her crying when she came out of the house. She did not say a
(1) day of reclusion temporal as maximum, to indemnify the minor Cristina Elitiong in
word, but went to the faucet and washed her face.
the amount of P15,000.00 as moral damages and to pay the costs.
The offended party continued to finish the garlands she was working on, and waited
until the afternoon for her wages. When she arrived at her home, she first told her
CA: Affirmed RTC
mother that she no longer wished to go back. When pressed for a reason, she
SC: Affirmed CA but with modifications on damages
said basta po mama ayaw ko ng magtuhog. Finally, she told her mother what
happened.Aurora Elitiong, the mother, accompanied the offended party to the San
Ratio:
Vicente Barangay Hall on July 26 to report the incident and give a statement. Days
later, Cristina gave another statement to the local police.In the defense version, the Section 5, Article III of R.A. 7610 states:
offended party and her brothers had slept overnight in the house of the accused.
When Isidro woke up in the early morning to relieve himself, he saw the girl sleeping SEC. 5. Child Prostitution and Other Sexual Abuse. Children, whether male or female,
on the sofa. He admonished her to join her brothers in the basement. He went back who for money, profit, or any other consideration or due to the coercion or
to his room and slept until 8 A.M. Two hours later, at 10 A.M., he left for the Caltex influence of any adult, syndicate or group, indulge in sexual intercourse or lascivious
Service Station which was only a five minute ride from his home by tricycle. His conduct, are deemed to be children exploited in prostitution and other sexual abuse.
daughter Analee Olivarez was staying in another house in the compound and
The penalty of reclusion temporal in its medium period to reclusion perpetua shall
attended a morning mass. When she returned at 10:30 A.M., she no longer saw her
be imposed upon the following:
father. Maritess Buen, the laundrywoman, who was washing clothes outside the
kitchen, saw the accused earlier. By 10 A.M., when she entered the house, he (b) Those who commit the act of sexual intercourse or lascivious conduct with a child
already left. He returned by noontime.The accused testified that he was at the Caltex exploited in prostitution or subjected to other sexual abuse: Provided, That when the
station for two and a half hours waiting for the shipment of flowers from Pampanga. victim is under twelve (12) years of age, the perpetrators shall be prosecuted under
The goods arrived at 12:15 P.M. He left shortly thereafter and passed by the market Article 335, paragraph 3, for rape and Article 336 of Act No. 3815, as amended, the
1|Page
Revised Penal Code, for rape or lascivious conduct, as the case may be: Provided,
That the penalty for lascivious conduct when the victim is under twelve (12) years of
age shall be reclusion temporal in its medium period.
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.
Discussions on the presence of elements
1. 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.
2. 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. As
succinctly explained in People v. Larin:
A child is deemed exploited in prostitution or subjected to other sexual
abuse, when the child indulges in sexual intercourse or lascivious conduct
(a) for money, profit, or any other consideration; or (b) under the coercion
or influence of any adult, syndicate or group. ...
It must be noted that the law covers not only a situation in which a child is
abused for profit, but also one in which a child, through coercion or
intimidation, engages in lascivious conduct. (this was reiterated in Amployo
vs People)
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.
2|Page
3. 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. The prosecution has also established the minority of the
offended party through competent evidence. Cristina testified that she was
16 years old and a certification from the Office of the Local Registrar of San
Pedro, Laguna was presented showing that she was born on October 17,
1980. The third element of sexual abuse is therefore present.
On the issue about the information as alleged by Olivarez:
In all criminal prosecutions, the accused is entitled to be informed of the nature and
cause of the accusation against him. A complaint is sufficient if it states the name of
the accused; the designation of the offense given by the statute; the acts or
omissions complained of as constituting the offense; the name of the offended
party; the approximate date of the commission of the offense; and the place where
the offense was committed.The complaint or information shall state the designation
of the offense given by the statute, aver the acts or omissions constituting the
offense, and specify its qualifying and aggravating circumstances. If there is no
designation of the offense, reference shall be made to the section or subsection of
the statute punishing it.[22] The acts or omissions complained of as constituting the
offense and the qualifying and aggravating circumstances must be stated in ordinary
and concise language and not necessarily in the language used in the statute but in
terms sufficient to enable a person of common understanding to know what offense
is being charged as well as its qualifying and aggravating circumstances and for the
court to pronounce judgment.In the present case, the Court of Appeals found the
information to be sufficient. Relying on the principle laid down in People v. Rosare, it
held:
Before us is an information for violation of RA 7610 that, as in Rosare, fails to
mention an indispensable element of the offense, the age of the offended party, but
makes allusion to another document, the sworn complaint of the offended party,
and declares it to be the basis upon which the information was filed. This instrument
is the complaint filed by the offended party with the Municipal Trial Court of San
Pedro, Laguna in which she stated that she was 16 years old at the time of the
offense. It forms part of the initial records of the case and comes before the posting
of bail and entry of the plea of not guilty before the RTC. It appears that after the
charge was filed with the MTC, and as the preliminary investigation went underway,
the accused filed a manifestation stating that he had filed a counter-affidavit to the
charge and reserved the right to file a motion to quash the information if it was filed.
The MTC found probable cause against him and elevated the records to the
provincial prosecutor for filing of the information. A complaint is under the Rules one
of the two charging instruments for the offense of which the accused was tried and
convicted here. While the criminal action was instituted by the complaint of the
offended party, the information signed only by the fiscal ushered in the formal trial
process. But both are accusations in writing against the accused and serve the
purpose of enabling him to take the necessary legal steps for his defense. What is
important is that the information states that the accused is being charged of an
offense under RA 7610 based on the complaint of the offended party, to which the
accused had adequately responded. Under these conditions, the accused was fully
apprised of the accusation against him. The purpose and objective of the
constitutional mandate are discharged and satisfied. The accused may not be said to
be taken by surprise by the failure of the information to state the age of the
offended party, when he had received the initiatory complaint where he was told
how old the offended party was.
Dispositive:
WHEREFORE, the petition is DENIED. The decision of the Court of Appeals dated
January 9, 2004 in CA-G.R. CR No. 22860 and its resolution dated June 4, 2004,
are AFFIRMED with MODIFICATION. In addition to the award of P15,000.00 as moral
damages, petitioner Isidro Olivarez is also ordered to pay a fine in the amount of
P15,000.00.
3|Page
MICHAEL JOHN Z. MALTO v. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES
G.R. No. 164733, September 21, 2007
Corona, J.
Doctrine: The sweetheart theory cannot be invoked for purposes of sexual
intercourse and lascivious conduct in child abuse cases under RA 7610. Consent is
immaterial because the mere act of having sexual intercourse or committing
lascivious conduct with a child who is subjected to sexual abuse constitutes the
offense. Moreover, a child is presumed by law to be incapable of giving rational
consent to any lascivious act or sexual intercourse.
Facts:
Sometime during the month of November 1997 to 1998, Malto seduced his student,
AAA, a minor, to indulge in sexual intercourse several times with him. Prior to the
incident, petitioner and AAA had a mutual understanding and became
sweethearts. Pressured and afraid of the petitioners threat to end their relationship,
AAA succumbed and both had sexual intercourse.
Upon discovery of what AAA underwent, AAAs mother lodged a complaint in the
Office of the City Prosecutor of Pasay City. Assistant City Prosecutor charged the
petitioner in an Information a violation of Section 5(a), Article III, RA 7610. During the
month of November 1997 up to 1998, in Pasay City, Michael John. Z. Malto, a
professor, did then and there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously take advantage and
exert influence, relationship and moral ascendancy and induce and/or seduce his
student at Assumption College, complainant, AAA, a minor of 17 years old, to indulge
in sexual intercourse and lascivious conduct for several times with him as in fact said
accused has carnal knowledge.
The trial court found the evidence for the prosecution sufficient to sustain
petitioners conviction and rendered a decision finding petitioner guilty beyond
reasonable doubt for violation of Article III, Section 5(a), par. 3 of RA 7610, as
amended and sentenced him to reclusion temporal.
In a decision, the appellate court affirmed his conviction even if it found that his acts
were not covered by paragraph (a) but by paragraph (b) of Section 5, Article III of RA
7610; and thereby sentenced to an indeterminate penalty prision mayor.
Issue:
In a decision, the appellate court affirmed his conviction even if it found that his acts
were not covered by paragraph (a) but by paragraph (b) of Section 5, Article III of RA
7610; and thereby sentenced to an indeterminate penalty prision mayor. NO

Ratio:
NEGATIVE. Petitioner is wrong.
Petitioner violated Section 5(b), Article III of RA 7610, as amended. The first element
of Section 5(b), Article III of RA 7610 pertains to the act or acts committed by the
accused. The second element refers to the state or condition of the offended party.
The third element corresponds to the minority or age of the offended party. Since all
three elements of the crime were present, the conviction of petitioner was proper.
Consent of the child is immaterial in criminal cases involving violation of Sec. 5, Art.
III of RA 7610. Petitioner claims that AAA welcomed his kisses and touches and
consented to have sexual intercourse with him. They engaged in these acts out of
mutual love and affection. The sweetheart theory applies in acts of lasciviousness
and rape, felonies committed against or without the consent of the victim. It
operates on the theory that the sexual act was consensual. It requires proof that the
accused and the victim were lovers and that she consented to the sexual relations.30
To provide special protection to children from all forms of abuse, neglect, cruelty,
exploitation and discrimination, and other conditions prejudicial to 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. [A]s well as to intervene on behalf of the child when
the parents, 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.
The best interest 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 principles of First Call for Children as enunciated in the United
Nations Convention on 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.

For purposes of sexual intercourse and lascivious conduct in child abuse cases under
RA 7610, the sweetheart defense is unacceptable. A child exploited in prostitution or
subjected to other sexual abuse cannot validly give consent to sexual intercourse
with another person.

A child cannot give consent to a contract under our civil laws. This is on the rationale
that she can easily be the victim of fraud as she is not capable of fully understanding
or knowing the nature or import of her actions. The State, as parens patriae, is under
the obligation to minimize the risk of harm to those who, because of their minority,
are as yet unable to take care of themselves fully. Those of tender years deserve its
protection.

The harm which results from a childs bad decision in a sexual encounter may be
infinitely more damaging to her than a bad business deal. Thus, the law should
protect her from the harmful consequences of her attempts at adult sexual behavior.
For this reason, a child should not be deemed to have validly consented to adult
sexual activity and to surrender herself in the act of ultimate physical intimacy under
a law which seeks to afford her special protection against abuse, exploitation and
discrimination. In other words, a child is presumed by law to be incapable of giving
rational consent to any lascivious act or sexual intercourse.

4|Page
G.R. No. 182835 April 20, 2010
RUSTAN ANG y PASCUA, Petitioner,
vs.
THE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS and IRISH SAGUD, Respondents.
Facts:
Complainant Irish Sagud (Irish) and accused Rustan were classmates at Wesleyan
University in Aurora Province. Rustan courted Irish and they became "on-and-off"
sweethearts towards the end of 2004. When Irish learned afterwards that Rustan
had taken a live-in partner (now his wife), whom he had gotten pregnant, Irish broke
up with him.In the early morning of June 5, 2005, Irish received through multimedia
message service (MMS) a picture of a naked woman with spread legs and with Irishs
face superimposed on the figure (Exhibit A).2 The senders cellphone number, stated
in the message, was 0921-8084768, one of the numbers that Rustan used. Irish
surmised that he copied the picture of her face from a shot he took when they were
in Baguio in 2003. After she got the obscene picture, Irish got other text messages
from Rustan. He boasted that it would be easy for him to create similarly scandalous
pictures of her. And he threatened to spread the picture he sent through the
internet. One of the messages he sent to Irish, written in text messaging shorthand,
read: "Madali lang ikalat yun, my chatrum ang tarlac rayt pwede ring send sa lahat ng
chatter."Irish sought the help of the vice mayor of Maria Aurora who referred her to
the police. Under police supervision, Irish contacted Rustan through the cellphone
numbers he used in sending the picture and his text messages. Irish asked Rustan to
meet her at the Lorentess Resort in Brgy. Ramada, Maria Aurora, and he did. He
came in a motorcycle. After parking it, he walked towards Irish but the waiting police
officers intercepted and arrested him. They searched him and seized his Sony
Ericsson P900 cellphone and several SIM cards.
For his part, Rustan admitted having courted Irish. He began visiting her in Tarlac in
October 2003 and their relation lasted until December of that year. He claimed that
after their relation ended, Irish wanted reconciliation. They met in December 2004
but, after he told her that his girlfriend at that time (later his wife) was already
pregnant, Irish walked out on him.Rustan further claims that he also went to
Lorentess because Irish asked him to help her identify a prankster who was sending
her malicious text messages. Rustan got the senders number and, pretending to be
Irish, contacted the person. Rustan claims that he got back obscene messages from
the prankster, which he forwarded to Irish from his cellphone. This explained, he
said, why the obscene messages appeared to have originated from his cellphone
number. Rustan claims that it was Irish herself who sent the obscene picture (Exhibit
5|Page
A) to him. He presented six pictures of a woman whom he identified as Irish.
Michelle Ang (Michelle), Rustans wife, testified that she was sure Irish sent the six
pictures. Michelle claims that she received the pictures and hid the memory card
(Exhibit 8) that contained them because she was jealous and angry. She did not want
to see anything of Irish. But, while the woman in the pictures posed in sexy clothing,
in none did she appear naked as in Exhibit A. Further, the face of the woman in
Exhibits 2, 4, 5 and 6 could not be seen. Irish denied that she was the woman in
those four pictures. As for Exhibits 3 and 7, the woman in the picture was fully
dressed.
Issue:
The principal issue in this case is whether or not accused Rustan sent Irish by
cellphone message the picture with her face pasted on the body of a nude woman,
inflicting anguish, psychological distress, and humiliation on her in violation of
Section 5(h) of R.A. 9262.
1. Whether or not a "dating relationship" existed between Rustan and Irish as this
term is defined in R.A. 9262;
2. Whether or not a single act of harassment, like the sending of the nude picture in
this case, already constitutes a violation of Section 5(h) of R.A. 9262.
Ratio and Ruling:
Section 3(a) of R.A. 9262 provides that violence against women includes an act or
acts of a person against a woman with whom he has or had a sexual or dating
relationship. Thus:
SEC. 3. Definition of Terms. As used in this Act,
(a) "Violence against women and their children" refers to any act or a series
of acts committed by any person against a woman who is his wife, former
wife, or against a woman with whom the person has or had a sexual or
dating relationship, or with whom he has a common child, or against her
child whether legitimate or illegitimate, within or without the family abode,
which result in or is likely to result in physical, sexual, psychological harm or
suffering, or economic abuse including threats of such acts, battery, assault,
coercion, harassment or arbitrary deprivation of liberty.
 Section 5 identifies the act or acts that constitute violence against women
and these include any form of harassment that causes substantial
emotional or psychological distress to a woman. Thus:
SEC. 5. Acts of Violence Against Women and Their Children. The crime of
violence against women and their children is committed through any of the
following acts:
h. Engaging in purposeful, knowing, or reckless conduct, personally or
through another, that alarms or causes substantial emotional or
psychological distress to the woman or her child. This shall include, but not
be limited to, the following acts:
5. Engaging in any form of harassment or violence;
The above provisions, taken together, indicate that the elements of the crime of
violence against women through harassment are:
1. The offender has or had a sexual or dating relationship with the offended
woman;
2. The offender, by himself or through another, commits an act or series of
acts of harassment against the woman; and
3. The harassment alarms or causes substantial emotional or psychological
distress to her.
One. The parties to this case agree that the prosecution needed to prove that
accused Rustan had a "dating relationship" with Irish. Section 3(e) provides that a
"dating relationship" includes a situation where the parties are romantically involved
over time and on a continuing basis during the course of the relationship. Thus:
(e) "Dating relationship" refers to a situation wherein the parties live as husband and
wife without the benefit of marriage or are romantically involved over time and on a
continuing basis during the course of the relationship. A casual acquaintance or
ordinary socialization between two individuals in a business or social context is not a
dating relationship. (Underscoring supplied.)
Here, Rustan claims that, being "romantically involved," implies that the offender
and the offended woman have or had sexual relations. According to him, "romance"
6|Page
implies a sexual act. He cites Websters Comprehensive Dictionary Encyclopedia
Edition which provides a colloquial or informal meaning to the word "romance" used
as a verb, i.e., "to make love; to make love to" as in "He romanced her."
But it seems clear that the law did not use in its provisions the
colloquial verb "romance" that implies a sexual act. It did not say that the offender
must have "romanced" the offended woman. Rather, it used the noun "romance" to
describe a couples relationship, i.e., "a love affair."9
R.A. 9262 provides in Section 3 that "violence against women x x x refers to any act
or a series of acts committed by any person against a woman x x x with whom the
person has or had a sexual or dating relationship." Clearly, the law itself distinguishes
a sexual relationship from a dating relationship. Indeed, Section 3(e) above defines
"dating relationship" while Section 3(f) defines "sexual relations." The latter "refers
to a single sexual act which may or may not result in the bearing of a common child."
The dating relationship that the law contemplates can, therefore, exist even without
a sexual intercourse taking place between those involved.
Rustan also claims that since the relationship between Irish and him was of the "on-
and-off" variety (away-bati), their romance cannot be regarded as having developed
"over time and on a continuing basis." But the two of them were romantically
involved, as Rustan himself admits, from October to December of 2003. That would
be time enough for nurturing a relationship of mutual trust and love.
An "away-bati" or a fight-and-kiss thing between two lovers is a common
occurrence. Their taking place does not mean that the romantic relation between
the two should be deemed broken up during periods of misunderstanding.
Explaining what "away-bati" meant, Irish explained that at times, when she could not
reply to Rustans messages, he would get angry at her. That was all. Indeed, she
characterized their three-month romantic relation as continuous.10
Two. Rustan argues that the one act of sending an offensive picture should not be
considered a form of harassment. He claims that such would unduly ruin him
personally and set a very dangerous precedent. But Section 3(a) of R.A. 9262
punishes "any act or series of acts" that constitutes violence against women. This
means that a single act of harassment, which translates into violence, would be
enough. The object of the law is to protect women and children. Punishing only
violence that is repeatedly committed would license isolated ones.
Rustan alleges that todays women, like Irish, are so used to obscene
communications that her getting one could not possibly have produced alarm in her
or caused her substantial emotional or psychological distress. He claims having
previously exchanged obscene pictures with Irish such that she was already
desensitized by them.
But, firstly, the RTC which saw and heard Rustan and his wife give their testimonies
was not impressed with their claim that it was Irish who sent the obscene pictures of
herself (Exhibits 2-7). It is doubtful if the woman in the picture was Irish since her
face did not clearly show on them.
Michelle, Rustans wife, claimed that she deleted several other pictures that Irish
sent, except Exhibits 2 to 7. But her testimony did not make sense. She said that she
did not know that Exhibits 2 to 7 had remained saved after she deleted the pictures.
Later, however, she said that she did not have time to delete them.11 And, if she
thought that she had deleted all the pictures from the memory card, then she had
no reason at all to keep and hide such memory card. There would have been nothing
to hide. Finally, if she knew that some pictures remained in the card, there was no
reason for her to keep it for several years, given that as she said she was too jealous
to want to see anything connected to Irish. Thus, the RTC was correct in not giving
credence to her testimony.1avvphi1
Secondly, the Court cannot measure the trauma that Irish experienced based on
Rustans low regard for the alleged moral sensibilities of todays youth. What is
obscene and injurious to an offended woman can of course only be determined
based on the circumstances of each case. Here, the naked woman on the picture,
her legs spread open and bearing Irishs head and face, was clearly an obscene
picture and, to Irish a revolting and offensive one. Surely, any woman like Irish, who
is not in the pornography trade, would be scandalized and pained if she sees herself
in such a picture. What makes it further terrifying is that, as Irish testified, Rustan
sent the picture with a threat to post it in the internet for all to see. That must have
given her a nightmare.
Three. Rustan argues that, since he was arrested and certain items were seized from
him without any warrant, the evidence presented against him should be deemed
inadmissible. But the fact is that the prosecution did not present in evidence either
the cellphone or the SIM cards that the police officers seized from him at the time of
his arrest. The prosecution did not need such items to prove its case. Exhibit C for
the prosecution was but a photograph depicting the Sony Ericsson P900 cellphone
that was used, which cellphone Rustan admitted owning during the pre-trial
conference.
7|Page
Actually, though, the bulk of the evidence against him consisted in Irishs testimony
that she received the obscene picture and malicious text messages that the senders
cellphone numbers belonged to Rustan with whom she had been previously in
communication. Indeed, to prove that the cellphone numbers belonged to Rustan,
Irish and the police used such numbers to summon him to come to Lorentess Resort
and he did.12 Consequently, the prosecution did not have to present the confiscated
cellphone and SIM cards to prove that Rustan sent those messages.
Moreover, Rustan admitted having sent the malicious text messages to Irish.13 His
defense was that he himself received those messages from an unidentified person
who was harassing Irish and he merely forwarded the same to her, using his
cellphone. But Rustan never presented the cellphone number of the unidentified
person who sent the messages to him to authenticate the same. The RTC did not
give credence to such version and neither will this Court. Besides, it was most
unlikely for Irish to pin the things on Rustan if he had merely tried to help her
identify the sender.
Four. Rustan claims that the obscene picture sent to Irish through a text message
constitutes an electronic document. Thus, it should be authenticated by means of an
electronic signature, as provided under Section 1, Rule 5 of the Rules on Electronic
Evidence (A.M. 01-7-01-SC).
But, firstly, Rustan is raising this objection to the admissibility of the obscene picture,
Exhibit A, for the first time before this Court. The objection is too late since he
should have objected to the admission of the picture on such ground at the time it
was offered in evidence. He should be deemed to have already waived such ground
for objection.14
Besides, the rules he cites do not apply to the present criminal action. The Rules on
Electronic Evidence applies only to civil actions, quasi-judicial proceedings, and
administrative proceedings.15
In conclusion, this Court finds that the prosecution has proved each and every
element of the crime charged beyond reasonable doubt.
WHEREFORE, the Court DENIES the petition and AFFIRMS the decision of the Court
of Appeals in CA-G.R. CR 30567 dated January 31, 2008 and its resolution dated April
25, 2008.
SO ORDERED.
DOMINGO V RAYALA
G.R. No. 155831 February 18, 2008
Doctrine
Sexual harassment is an imposition of misplaced superiority which is enough to
dampen an employees spirit and her capacity for advancement. It affects her sense
of judgment; it changes her life.
The law penalizing sexual harassment in our jurisdiction is RA 7877. Section 3
thereof defines work-related sexual harassment in this wise:
Sec. 3.Work, Education or Training-related Sexual Harassment Defined. Work,
education or training-related sexual harassment is committed by an employer,
manager, supervisor, agent of the employer, teacher, instructor, professor, coach,
trainor, or any other person who, having authority, influence or moral ascendancy
over another in a work or training or education environment, demands, requests or
otherwise requires any sexual favor from the other, regardless of whether the
demand, request or requirement for submission is accepted by the object of said Act.
(a) In a work-related or employment environment, sexual harassment is committed
when:
1) The sexual favor is made as a condition in the hiring or in the employment, re-
employment or continued employment of said individual, or in granting said
individual favorable compensation, terms, conditions, promotions, or privileges;
or the refusal to grant the sexual favor results in limiting, segregating or
classifying the employee which in a way would discriminate, deprive or diminish
employment opportunities or otherwise adversely affect said employee;
2) The above acts would impair the employees rights or privileges under existing
labor laws; or
3) The above acts would result in an intimidating, hostile, or offensive
environment for the employee.
BRIEF
Before this Court are three Petitions for Review on Certiorari assailing the October
18, 2002 Resolution of the CAs Former Ninth Division2 in CA-G.R. SP No. 61026.
The Resolution modified the December 14, 2001 Decision3 of the Court of Appeals
Eleventh Division, which had affirmed the Decision of the Office of the President
(OP) dismissing from the service then National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC)
Chairman Rogelio I. Rayala for disgraceful and immoral conduct. All three petitions
stem from the same factual antecedents.
8|Page
FACTS
On November 16, 1998, Ma. Lourdes T. Domingo, then Stenographic Reporter III at
the NLRC, filed a Complaint for sexual harassment against Chairman Rayala before
Secretary BienvenidoLaguesma of the Department of Labor and Employment
(DOLE).
To support the Complaint, Domingo executed an Affidavit narrating the incidences
of sexual harassment complained of, indicating that:Chairman Rayala, while
Domingo is typing a letter, holds and squeeze the latters shoulders, running his
fingers across her neck and tickling her ear, having inappropriate conversations with
her, giving her money, and making statements with unmistakable sexual
implications.
Domingo filed the Complaint for sexual harassment on the basis of Administrative
Order No. 250, the Rules and Regulations Implementing RA 7877 in the Department
of Labor and Employment.
Rayala being a presidential appointee, DOLE referred the Complaint to the OP. The
OP, through then Executive Secretary Ronaldo Zamora, ordered Secretary
Laguesma to investigate the allegations in the Complaint and create a committee
for such purpose. The Committee found Rayala guilty of the offense charged and
recommended the imposition of the minimum penalty provided under AO 250,
which it erroneously stated as suspension for six (6) months.
Secretary Laguesma submitted a copy of the Committee Report and
Recommendation to the OP, but with the recommendation that the penalty should
be suspension for six (6) months and one (1) day, in accordance with AO 250.
OP Decision
Chairman Rayala of NLRC is found guilty of the grave offense of disgraceful and
immoral conduct and is hereby DISMISSED from the service.
CA Decision
It held that there was sufficient evidence on record to create moral certainty that
Rayala committed the acts he was charged with. Petition Dismissed.
Rayala filed 3 petitions which the SC directed their consolidation.
ISSUE
Whether Chairman Rayala committed sexual harassment
HELD Yes.
It is not necessary that the demand, request or requirement of a sexual favor be
articulated in a categorical oral or written statement. It may be discerned, with
equal certitude, from the acts of the offender. Holding and squeezing Domingos
shoulders, running his fingers across her neck and tickling her ear, having
inappropriate conversations with her, giving her money allegedly for school
expenses with a promise of future privileges, and making statements with
unmistakable sexual overtones all these acts of Rayala resound with deafening
clarity the unspoken request for a sexual favor. It is not essential that the demand,
request or requirement be made as a condition for continued employment or for
promotion to a higher position. It is enough that the respondents acts result in
creating an intimidating, hostile or offensive environment for the employee. That
the acts of Rayala generated an intimidating and hostile environment for Domingo
is clearly shown by the common factual finding of the Investigating Committee, the
OP and the CA that Domingo reported the matter to an officemate and, after the
last incident, filed for a leave of absence and requested transfer to another unit.

It is noteworthy that under AO 250, sexual harassment amounts to disgraceful and

immoral conduct. Thus, any finding of liability for sexual harassment may also be
the basis of culpability for disgraceful and immoral conduct.Rayala holds the exalted
position of NLRC Chairman, with the rank equivalent to a CA Justice. Thus, it is not
unavailing that rigid standards of conduct may be demanded of him.

9|Page
PEOPLE V MELCHOR CABALQUINTO
G.R. No. 167693 September 19, 2006
(Formerly G.R. Nos. 147678-87)
Doctrine
Sec. 29 of RA 7610 provides:
Sec. 29.Confidentiality. at the instance of the offended party, his name
may be withheld from the public until the court acquires jurisdiction over
the case.
It shall be unlawful for any editor, publisher, and reporter or columnist in
case of printed materials, announcer or producer in the case of television
and radio broadcasting, producer and director in the case of the movie
industry, to cause undue and sensationalized publicity of any case of a
violation of this Act which results in the moral degradation and suffering of
the offended party.
Sec. 44 of RA 9262 similarly provides:
Sec. 44.Confidentiality.All records pertaining to cases of violence against
women and their children including those in the barangay shall be
confidential and all public officers and employees and public or private
clinics or hospitals shall respect the right to privacy of the victim. Whoever
publishes or causes to be published, in any format, the name, address,
telephone number, school, business address, employer, or other
identifying information of a victim or an immediate family member,
without the latter's consent, shall be liable to the contempt power of the
court.
Sec. 40 of theRule on Violence Against Women and their Children states:
Sec. 40.Privacy and confidentiality of proceedings.All hearings of cases of
violence against women and their children shall be conducted in a manner
consistent with the dignity of women and their children and respect for
their privacy.
BRIEF
This case presents an opportunity for the Court not only to once again dispense due
requital for the sufferings of a child who has been defiled by her own father, but
also to effectuate the provisions of Republic Act No. 7610 (RA 7610), otherwise
known as the Special Protection of Children Against Child Abuse, Exploitation and
Discrimination Act, and its implementing rules, RA 9262, otherwise known as the
10 | P a g e
Anti-Violence Against Women and Their Children Act of 2004, and its implementing
rules, and our own Rule on Violence Against Women and their Children.
FACTS
ABC testified that she is the common-law wife of Cabalquinto and that they have
four children, namely: BBB, CCC, the child-victim AAA, and DDD. At around 8:45
p.m. of November 13, 1998, she was on her way home. Since there is a half-inch
gap between the door and the wall, she peeped through the gap and saw
Cabalquinto lying face down making pumping motions on their daughter, AAA, who
was lying underneath him with her panties pulled down. When she heard
Cabalquinto tell AAA to open her legs (ibukamo), she kicked and pounded the door.
Cabalquinto immediately lay down. AAA then stood up and opened the door. ABC
entered the room and confronted Cabalquinto who only denied her accusation. ABC
further testified that during the police investigation on November 14, 1998, AAA
revealed to the police that a similar incident happened to her on November 8,
1998, the day of her friends birthday celebration.
Dr. Manalo, who conducted the physical examination of AAA, testified that AAA had
no injury on her genitalia; that her hymen is quite large and distensible possibly
because of penile penetration; and that she recovered a strand of pubic hair inside
AAA's vaginal vault which could only have reached the area as a consequence of
penile penetration because AAA did not have pubic hair yet. Testifying as lone
witness for his defense, Cabalquinto denied that he raped AAA. The trial court gave
full credence to AAA's testimony and found the accused guilty of the crime of rape.
The mother submitted that confidentiality and the best interest of the child must
prevail over public access to information and pleaded that her daughters case, as
well as those of a similar nature, be excluded from the Web Page.
ISSUE
1. Whether Cabalquinto is guilty of the crime rape - Yes
2. Whether the identity of the aggrieved party should not be disclosed in line
with the right to privacy for rape cases - Yes
HELD
1. Carnal knowledge of a woman under 12 years of age is rape as defined
under Art. 335 of the Revised Penal Code, and is qualified when the
offender is a parent of the victim, in which case, the death penalty shall be
imposed as provided under the Death Penalty Law. 39 In this case, the
qualifying circumstances of the victim's minority and her relationship with
 the accused as the latter's daughter were properly alleged in the
Informations, proven during trial and not refuted by Cabalquinto.
However, in view of Republic Act No. 9346 which prohibits the imposition
of the death penalty, the penalty of reclusion perpetuawithout eligibility
for parole should instead be imposed.
2. The position of the OSG in its Comment is noteworthy. The OSG submits
that the posting of the full text of decisions in cases involving child abuse
on the Supreme Court Web Page violates the right to privacy of the
aggrieved parties. In order to determine whether the subject matter upon
which the right to privacy being invoked falls within the constitutionally-
protected zone of privacy, it must be shown that the persons expectation
of privacy is reasonable. The reasonableness of such expectancy depends
on a two part test: (1) whether by his conduct, the individual has exhibited
an expectation of privacy; and (2) whether this expectation is one that
society recognizes as reasonable.
It shall be unlawful for any editor, publisher, and reporter or columnist in
case of printed materials, announcer or producer in the case of television
and radio broadcasting, producer and director in the case of the movie
industry, to cause undue and sensationalized publicity of any case of a
violation of this Act which results in the moral degradation and suffering of
the offended party.
11 | P a g e
AQUINO VS. ACOSTA
ATTY. SUSAN M. AQUINO, petitioner,
vs.
HON. ERNESTO D. ACOSTA, Presiding Judge, Court of Tax Appeals, respondent
A.M. No. CTA-01-1
02 April 2002
Ponente: SANDOVAL-GUTIERREZ, J.
Nature of Case:
Administrative Case
BRIEF:
Atty. Susan M. Aquino, Chief of the Legal and Technical Staff of the Court of Tax
Appeals (CTA), charged Judge Ernesto Acosta, Presiding Judge of the same court,
with sexual harassment under R.A. 7877 and violation of the Canons of Judicial
Ethics and Code of Professional Responsibility.
FACTS:
On November 21, 2000, she reported for work after her vacation in the U.S.,
bringing gifts for the three judges of the CTA, including respondent. In the
afternoon of the same day, he entered her room and greeted her by shaking her
hand. Suddenly, he pulled her towards him and kissed her on her cheek.
On December 28, 2000, while respondent was on official leave, he called
complainant by phone, saying he will get something in her office. Shortly thereafter,
he entered her room, shook her hand and greeted her, "Merry Christmas."
Thereupon, he embraced her and kissed her. She was able to free herself by slightly
pushing him away.
On the first working day in January, 2001, respondent phoned complainant, asking
if she could see him in his chambers in order to discuss some matters. When
complainant arrived there, respondent tried to kiss her but she was able to evade
his sexual attempt.
Weeks later, after the Senate approved the proposed bill expanding the jurisdiction
of the CTA, while complainant and her companions were congratulating and kissing
each other, respondent suddenly placed his arms around her shoulders and kissed
her.
In the morning of February 14, 2001, respondent called complainant, requesting her
to go to his office. She then asked Ruby Lanuza, a clerk in the Records Section, to
accompany her. Fortunately, when they reached his chambers, respondent had left.
The last incident happened the next day. At around 8:30 a.m., respondent called
complainant and asked her to see him in his office to discuss the Senate bill on the
CTA. She again requested Ruby to accompany her. The latter agreed but suggested
that they should act as if they met by accident in respondents office. Ruby then
approached the secretarys table which was separated from respondents office by a
transparent glass. For her part, complainant sat in front of respondent's table and
asked him what he wanted to know about the Senate bill. Respondent seemed to
be at a loss for words and kept glancing at Ruby who was searching for something
at the secretary's desk. Forthwith, respondent approached Ruby, asked her what
she was looking for and stepped out of the office. When he returned, Ruby said she
found what she was looking for and left. Respondent then approached complainant
saying, me gusto akonggawinsaiyokahapon pa. Thereupon, he tried to grab her.
Complainant instinctively raised her hands to protect herself but respondent held
her arms tightly, pulled her towards him and kissed her. She pushed him away, then
slumped on a chair trembling. Meantime, respondent sat on his chair and covered
his face with his hands. Thereafter, complainant left crying and locked herself inside
a comfort room. After that incident, respondent went to her office and tossed a
note stating, sorry, it wont happen again.
ISSUE:
Whether or not Judge Acosta is guilty of sexually harassment.
ACTIONS OF THE COURT
SC: No.
COURT RATIONALE ON THE ABOVE FACTS:
A mere casual buss on the cheek is not a sexual conduct or favor and does not fall
within the purview of sexual harassment under R.A. No. 7877. Section 3 (a) thereof
provides, to wit:
'Sec. 3. Work, Education or Training - related Sexual Harassment Defined. - Work,
education or training-related sexual harassment is committed by an employer,
employee, manager, supervisor, agent of the employer, teacher, instructor,
professor, coach, trainor, or any other person who, having authority, influence or
moral ascendancy over another in a work or training or education environment,
demands, requests or otherwise requires any sexual favor from the other,
regardless of whether the demand, request or requirement for submission is
12 | P a g e
accepted by the object of said Act.
a) In a work-related or employment environment, sexual harassment is committed
when:
1) The sexual favor is made as a condition in the hiring or in the employment, re-
employment or continued employment of said individual, or in granting said
individual favorable compensation, terms, conditions, promotions or privileges; or
the refusal to grant sexual favor results in limiting, segregating or classifying the
employee which in anyway would discriminate, deprive or diminish employment
opportunities or otherwise adversely affect said employees;
2) The above acts would impair the employee's right or privileges under existing
labor laws; or
3) The above acts would result in an intimidating, hostile, or offensive environment
for the employee.
Clearly, under the foregoing provisions, the elements of sexual harassment are as
follows:
i) The employer, employee, manager, supervisor, agent of the employer, teacher,
instructor, professor, coach, trainor, or any other person has authority, influence or
moral ascendancy over another;
ii) The authority, influence or moral ascendancy exists in a working environment;
iii) The employer, employee, manager, supervisor, agent of the employer, teacher,
instructor, professor, coach, or any other person having authority, influence or
moral ascendancy makes a demand, request or requirement of a sexual favor.
Indeed, from the records on hand, there is no showing that respondent judge
demanded, requested or required any sexual favor from complainant in exchange
for favorable compensation, terms, conditions, promotion or privileges specified
under Section 3 of R.A. 7877. Nor did he, by his actuations, violate the Canons of
Judicial Ethics or the Code of Professional Responsibility.
SUPREME COURT RULING:
WHEREFORE, respondent Judge Ernesto D. Acosta is hereby EXONERATED of the
charges against him. However, he is ADVISED to be more circumspect in his
deportment.
IMBO VS. PEOPLE COURT RATIONALE ON THE ABOVE FACTS:
Imbo has undoubtedly committed the acts of lasciviousness as all the elements of
NONITO IMBO Y GAMORES, petitioner, the crime was sufficiently proven through the lone testimony of his daughter which
vs. the court has held in more than one occasion as more than sufficient to establish
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, respondent the guilt of the accused.Under Art. 336 of the RPC, the elements of the crime of
Acts of Lasciviousness are:
G.R. No. 197712 1) The offender commits any act of lasciviousness or lewdness;
20 April 2015 2) That it is done under any of the following circumstances:
Ponente: PEREZ, J. a. By using force or intimidation; or
b. When the offended party is deprived of reason or otherwise
Nature of Case: unconscious; or
Petition for Review of Certiorari under Rule 45 c. By means of fraudulent machination or grave abuse of authority;
and
BRIEF: d. When the offended party is under 12 years of age.
Appeal on the decision of the CA affirming RTC decision convicting petitioner of the 3) That the offended party is another person of either sex.
Crime of Acts of Lasciviousness under Article 336 of the RPC in relation to Section 5,
Article III of RA No 7160. SUPREME COURT RULING:
WHEREFORE, the appeal is DENIED. The Decision dated February 17, 2011 of the
FACTS: Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CR No. 32804 and the Judgment of the Regional Trial
The Information filed against the petitioner herein stated that on or about 14 Court, Branch 94, Quezon City in Criminal Case No. 04-124565 are AFFIRMED WITH
October 2003 up to 25 January 2004 in Quezon City, Imbo committed acts of MODIFICATION. Petitioner NonitoImbo Y Gamores is sentenced to an indeterminate
lasciviousness upon his 11 year old daughter by then and there forcing her to penalty of twelve (12) years and one (1) day of reclusion temporal as minimum and
remove her shorts, mashing her breasts and private parts and kissing her, thereby seventeen (17) years and four (4) months of reclusion temporal as maximum.
subjecting said complainant to sexual abuse, with lewd design and against her will.

Imbo claimed that his wife merely fabricated such a story (in Imbos daughters
story, she screamed for her mother 3 times and was not heard and she was only
able to tell her mother about the incident in the following morning) that he had
raped his daughter. Ultimately, Imbo claimed that on the night in question, within
the period from 14 October 2003 to 25 January 2004, no crime occurred, his days
ending as did his workday which were from 830am to 500pm.

ISSUE:
Whether Imbo is liable for the crime of acts of lasciviousness.

ACTIONS OF THE COURT

RTC: Convicted for the crime of Acts of Lasciviousness
CA: Affirmed RTC ruling
SC: Affirmed RTC and CA rulings

13 | P a g e