rosaldes v people
discipline Michael Ryan as her pupil, her infliction of the
f: Felina Rosaldes, a public school teacher, was sleeping on
a sofa. She was roused from her sleep when the 7yr old
gonzales, who was hurriedly entering the classroom
bumped her leg. Rosaldes then told the child to apologize
but the child did not. Angered by this, Rosaldes pinched
him on his thigh. Then, she held him up by his armpits and
pushed him to the floor. As he fell, Michael Ryan’s body hit
a desk. As a result, he lost consciousness. Petitioner
proceeded topick Michael Ryan up by his ears and
repeatedly slammed him down on the floor. The child's
mother found out about this and had her child examined
by a doctor which resulted in findings of several injuries.
Rosaldes was then charged for child abuse under RA 7610
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 to 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.
abuse defined
(b) "Child abuse" refers to the maltreatment,
whether habitual or not, of the child which includes any of
the following:
(1) Psychological and physical abuse, neglect,
cruelty, sexual abuse and emotional maltreatment;
(2) Any act by deeds or words which debases,
degrades or demeans the intrinsic worth and dignity of a
child as a human being;
rtc - guilty
(4) years, two (2) months and one (1) day of prision
correccional, as minimum, to six (6) years and one (1) day
of prision mayor, as maximum, and to pay the costs.
No pronouncement as to civil liability, the same not having
been proved.
ca - upheld rtc decision
petitioner contends that she did not deliberately inflict the
physical injuries suffered by MichaelRyan to maltreat or
malign him in a manner that would debase, demean or
degrade his dignity. She characterizes her maltreatment as
anact of discipline that she as a school teacher could
reasonably do towards the development of the child. She
insists that her act further came under the doctrine of in
loco parentis.
Although the petitioner, as a school teacher, could duly
physical injuries on him was unnecessary, violent and
excessive. The boy even fainted from the violence suffered
at her hand. She could not justifiably claim that she acted
only for the sake of disciplining him. Her physical
maltreatment of him was precisely prohibited by no less
than the Family Code, which has expressly banned the
infliction of corporal punishmentby a school administrator,
teacher or individual engaged in child care exercising
special parental authority
Article 233. The person exercising substitute parental
authority shall have the same authority over the person of
the child as the parents.
In no case shall the school administrator, teacher or
individual engaged in child care exercising special parental
authority inflict corporal punishment upon the child.
abuse was proven to debase, degraded, or demean the
intrinsic worth and dignity of a child as a human being
when due to the trauma experienced by the child from his
teacher hat caused him to stop going to school altogether
out of fear of the petitioner, compelling his parents to
transfer him to another school where he had to adjust
again.
It was also shown that Michael Ryan’s physical
maltreatment by the petitioner was neither her first or
only maltreatment of a child. Prosecution witness Louella
Loredo clsm8 revealed on cross examination that she had
also experienced the petitioner’s cruelty
petitioner submits that the information charging her with
child abuse was insufficient in form and substance, in that
the essential elements of the crime charged were not
properly alleged therein; and that her constitutional and
statutory right to due process of law was consequently
violated.
-information 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 proximate date of the commission of the offense; and
the place where the offense was committed.
20k moral/ 20k exemplary and max period - public school
teacher/ temperate 20k for treatment
That on or about the 13th day of February 1996, in the
Municipality of Lambunao, Province of Iloilo, Philippines
and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the
above-named accused, being a public school teacher in
Grade 1 of Pughanan Elementary School, with a Salary
Grade below 26, under the DECS, did then and there
willfully, unlawfully and feloniously maltreat her pupil
Michael Ryan Gonzales, a seven year old child, by pinching
him on different parts of his body, and thereafter slumping
him to the ground, thereby causing Michael Ryan Gonzales
to lose his consciousness and has suffered injuries on
different parts of his body.
bongalon v people
f: Jayson Dela Cruz (Jayson) and Roldan, his older brother,
both minors, joined the evening procession for the Santo
Niño at Oro Site in Legazpi City; that when the procession
passed in front of the petitioner’s house, the latter’s
daughter Mary Ann Rose, also a minor, threw stones at
Jayson and called him "sissy"; that the petitioner
confronted Jayson and Roldan and called them names like
"strangers" and "animals"; that the petitioner struck
Jayson at the back with his hand, and slapped Jayson on
the face;4 that the petitioner then went to the brothers’
house and challenged Rolando dela Cruz, their father, to a
fight, but Rolando did not come out of the house to take
on the petitioner; that Rolando later brought Jayson to the
Legazpi City Police Station and reported the incident; that
Jayson also underwent medical treatment at the Bicol
Regional Training and Teaching Hospital;5 that the doctors
who examined Jayson issued two medical certificates
attesting that Jayson suffered injuries
bongalon - denial. merely talked to the boys because the
brothers harmed his daughter by throwing stones at them
burning their hair in the past
rtc - guilty under ra 7610 6-8yrs
ca - affirmed 4-6yrs
i: WoN guilty under ra7610 or art266 of rpc
h: RPC.
Although we affirm the factual findings of fact by the RTC
and the CA to the effect that the petitioner struck Jayson
at the back with his hand and slapped Jayson on the face,
we disagree with their holding that his acts constituted
child abuse within the purview of the above-quoted
provisions. The records did not establish beyond
reasonable doubt that his laying of hands on Jayson had
been intended to debase the "intrinsic worth and dignity"
of Jayson as a human being, or that he had thereby
intended to humiliate or embarrass Jayson. The records
showed the laying of hands on Jayson to have been done
at the spur of the moment and in anger, indicative of his
being then overwhelmed by his fatherly concern for the
personal safety of his own minor daughters who had just
suffered harm at the hands of Jayson and Roldan. With the
loss of his self-control, he lacked that specific intent to
debase, degrade or demean the intrinsic worth and dignity
of a child as a human being that was so essential in the
crime of child abuse.
It is not trite to remind that under the well-recognized
doctrine of pro reo every doubt is resolved in favor of the
petitioner as the accused. Thus, the Court should consider
all possible circumstances in his favor
Considering that Jayson’s physical injury required five to
seven days of medical attention,19 the petitioner was
liable for slight physical injuries under Article 266 (1) of the
Revised Penal Code, to wit:
Article 266. Slight physical injuries and maltreatment. —
The crime of slight physical injuries shall be punished:
1. By arresto menor when the offender has inflicted
physical injuries which shall incapacitate the offended
party for labor from one to nine days, or shall require
medical attendance during the same period
mitigating circumstance of passion or obfuscation was also
considered With his having acted under the belief that
Jayson and Roldan had thrown stones at his two minor
daughters, and that Jayson had burned Cherrlyn’s hair, the
petitioner was entitled to the mitigating circumstance of
passion.
10 days of arresto menor; and (c) ordering him to pay
Jayson Dela Cruz the amount of ₱5,000.00 as moral
damages, plus the costs of suit.
people v sanico
f:AAA claimed that the accused-appellant raped her in
2005, but she could not recall the exact month and date.
She remembered though that she was raped at around
2:00 p.m.while she was washing dishes in the kitchen.
There was nobody else in the house except her and the
accused-appellant. He approached and held her hands
tightly. She boxed the accused-appellant, but he pushed
her. Thereafter, he threatened to kill her if she would
shout. Knowing that the accused-appellant was a pig
butcher, AAA was overcome by fear. He then succeeded in
removing her clothes and undergarments and pushing her
against the wall. He took off his short pants and briefs and
inserted his penis into her vagina for two to three minutes.
She felt pain. The accused-appellant then pulled up his
short pants and laid down in the sofa.16
AAA alleged that she was again raped for six or seven
times, but she endured the harrowing experiences in
silence due to the accused-appellant’s threat to kill her.
She also dreaded the possibilities of quarrels and deaths,
which would ensue if her parents find out.17
On April 19, 2006, at around 1:00 p.m., AAA was napping
in a room with her niece. AAA woke up when she felt that
the accused-appellant was touching her. AAA rose and
repeatedly boxed the accused-appellant, but the latter
held her tightly, pulled up her clothes and mashed her
breast. Her father, CCC, was just in another room atthat
time, but out of fear, AAA kept quiet. When the accused-
appellant took off his short pants and inserted his penis
into AAA’s vagina, the latter resisted. Being merely built
out of wood, the house shook, which caused CCC towake
up. CCC lost consciousness for a short period of time when
he caught the accused-appellant performing lascivious acts
on AAA. The accused-appellant then seized the
opportunity to flee
At around 4:00 p.m. on the same day, Dr. Orais performed
a medico- genital examination on AAA and found the latter
to have suffered from sexual abuse. AAA’s hymen was
"coaptated" or slightly open and bore "old healed
laceration at 3 and 9 o’clock positions". The hymenal
laceration was possibly caused by "an injury secondary to
intravaginal penetration by a blunt object". No human
spermatozoa was found in AAA’s vagina. Dr. Orais,
however, explained that even in the presence of seminal
fluid, there are cases whenno sperm can be found. Dr.
Orais likewise noted no physical or extra-genital injurieson
AAA, but found ample evidence of sexual intercourse
having occurred more than one but less than four month/s
ago. Dr. Orais also testified that AAA was at times
uncooperative, timid, and emotionally restrained.
2 infos were filed against sanico
1 for acts of lasciviousness and 2 for rape
defense - On April 19, 2006, the accused-appellant had a
drinking spree with CCC in the latter’s house lasting from
8:00 a.m. to 12:00 p.m. As the two were both drunk, the
accused-appellant slept in the salawhile CCC did so in his
room. The accused-appellant woke up from slumber when
AAA touched the former’s pocket to search for money.She
got some coins and bills. The accused-appellant, in turn,
touched AAA’s chest and asked the latter to remove her
short pants. AAA complied. As the accused-appellant was
touching AAA’s breast, CCC woke up. Upon seeing what
was taking place, CCC got a boloto hack the accused-
appellant, but the latter escaped.
AAA alleged that she was raped on April 19, 2006, at
around 1:00 p.m. However, Dr. Orais, who conducted a
medical examination on AAA three hours after the
incident, testified that human spermatozoa was absent in
AAA’s vagina and the hymenal lacerations found were
possibly inflicted more than a month ago.31
The accused-appellant admitted though that he could be
held liable for acts of lasciviousness for touching AAA’s
breast and asking her to remove her short pants.
rtc - reclusion perpetua for rape and acts of lasciviousness
4 years, 2 months and 1 day to 6 years of imprisonment
under rpc
he appealed stating that he did not rape aaa. he admitted
to the acts of lasciviousness though.
ca - Section 5(b) of R.A. No. 7610 8 years and 1 day of
prision mayoras minimum to 17 years, 4 months and 1 day
of reclusion temporalas maximum.
H: as to acts of lasciviousness
As aptly stated by the CA, it would be a superfluity to
exhaustively re-evaluate the accused-appellant’s
conviction in Criminal Case No. 12021 for lasciviousness
conduct committed on April 19, 2006. First. The RTC and
the CA uniformly found the accused-appellant guilty as
charged. Second. The accused-appellant himself admitted
touching AAA’s breast and directing the latter totake off
her short pants. Third. In the appeal filed before the CA
and this court, no error was ascribed on the part of the
RTC in convicting the accused-appellant for lascivious
conduct.
The RTC and the CA, were however, not in agreement as to
the proper imposable penalty for the accused-appellant’s
lascivious conduct. The RTC applied the provisions of
Article 336 of the RPC and sentenced the accused-
appellant to 4 years, 2 months and 1 day to 6 years of
imprisonment. The CA, on the other hand, invoking Section
5(b) of R.A. No. 7610, which punishes sexual abuses
committed against minors, imposed upon the accused-
appellant the indeterminate penalty of 8 years and 1 day
of prision mayoras minimum to 17 years, 4 months and 1
day of reclusion temporalas maximum.
CA explained that during the trial, the prosecution was
able to prove the existence of the requisites of sexual
abuse under Section 5(b), R.A. No. 7610. The CA thus
modified the penalty and imposed instead the one
provided for in R.A. No. 7610.
The CA aptly declared that when an appeal isfiled in a
criminal action, it opens the entire matter for review and
that the requisites of sexual abuse under Section 5(b) of
R.A. No. 7610 are present in the accused-appellant’s case.
However, grounds exist compelling us to reinstate the
penalty and damages imposed by the RTC in Criminal Case
No. 12021.
It bears stressing that the case before the Court involves
two separate Informations filed – one for rape and
another for lascivious conduct.
In the case at bench, the commission of lascivious conduct
was admitted by the accused-appellant in his testimony.
No issue regarding his conviction for lascivious conduct
had been raised in his appeal before the CA as well.
Despite the fact that the appeal filed was captioned as one
with reference to Criminal Case Nos. 12021 and 12022, the
body stated in no uncertain terms that what was being
assailed was merely the conviction for rape. Effectively
then, it was as if no appeal was filed relative to Criminal
Case No. 12021. Hence, the penalty imposed by the RTC
for lascivious conduct should not be disturbed
anymore.Necessarily then, the CA cannot impose upon the
accused-appellant a graverpenalty and increase the
amount of damages awarded to AAA at least relative to
Criminal Case No. 12021. This is the path more in accord
with the general rule that penal laws are to be construed
liberally in favor of the accused
rape
"For conviction to be had in the crime of rape, the
following elements must be proven beyond reasonable
doubt: (1) that the accused had carnal knowledge of the
victim; and (2) that said act was accomplished (a) through
the use of force or intimidation, or (b) when the victim is
deprived of reason or otherwise unconscious, or (c) when
the victim is twelve years of age, or is demented
To exculpate him from liability, the accused-appellant
invokes Dr. Orais’ medical findings that human
spermatozoa was absent in AAA’s vagina, and that her
hymen bore old healed and not fresh lacerations possibly
sustained more than one but less than four month/s ago
[T]he absence of spermatozoa does not disprove rape, In
fact, in People v. Perez, it was held that:
x x x The absence of spermatozoa is not a negation of rape.
The presence or absence of spermatozoa isimmaterial
since it is penetration, not ejaculation, which constitutes
the crime of rape
rtc decisions on acts of lasciviousness case reinstated
ca decision
While we sustain [the] accused-appellant’s conviction of
acts of lasciviousness, yet, we nonetheless modify the
penalty imposed and the damages awarded by the court a
quo. x x x [W]e find that the court a quo erroneously
imposed the penalty [for] the crime of acts of
lasciviousness under Article 336 of the RPC in relation to
RA 7610. It is important to note that [the] accused-
appellant was charged [with] acts of lasciviousness under
Article 336 of the RPC in relation to RA 7610 which defines
sexual abuse of children and prescribes the penalty
therefore under Article III, Section 5 thereof. Certainly,
[the] accused-appellant was sufficiently informed of the
accusation against him and he can thus be convicted of the
crime of acts of lasciviousness under RA 7610 based on the
evidence presented against him. Article III, Section 5, of RA
7610 reads:
Section 5. Child Prostitution and Other Sexual Abuse.-
Children, whether male or female, who for money or
profit, or any other consideration or due to the coercion or
influence of any adult, syndicate or group, indulge in
sexual intercourse or lascivious conduct, are deemed to be
children exploited in prostitution and other sexual abuse.
The penalty of reclusion temporalin its medium period to
reclusion perpetuashall be imposed upon the following:
(a) x x x
(b) Those who commit the act of sexual intercourse or
lascivious conduct with a child exploited in prostitution
orsubject to other sexual abuse; Provided, That when the
victim is under twelve (12) years of age, the perpetrators
shall be prosecuted under Article 335, paragraph 3 for
rape and Article 336 of Act No. 3815, as amended, the
Revised Penal Code, for rapeor 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, x x x.
xxxx
Paragraph (b) punishes sexual intercourse or lascivious
conduct not only with a child exploited in prostitution, but
alsowith a child subjected to other sexual abuses. It covers
not only a situation where a child is abused for profit, but
also where one – through coercion, intimidation or
influence – engages in sexual intercourse or lascivious
conduct with a child.
The elements of sexual abuse under Section 5, Article III of
RA 7610 are the following:
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; and
3. The child, whether male or female, is below 18 years of
age.
[T]here is no doubt that [the] accused-appellant is guilty of
acts of lasciviousness under Section 5(b), Article XIII of RA
7610 after having admitted the lascivious conduct he
made with AAA. It is undisputed that AAA was still 12 years
old when the crime happened and as admitted by [the]
accused-appellant himself, hewas touching AAA because
AAA was looking for money inside his pocket and he told
AAA to remove her short pants for him to see her private
part. x x x.
It is important to note however that a child is deemed
subjected to other sexual abuse when the child indulges in
lascivious conduct under the coercion or influence of any
adult. x x x
xxxx
Undoubtedly, [the] accused-appellant’s acts were 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 RA 7610,
particularly on child abuse:
(g) "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;
(h) "Lascivious conduct" means the intentional touching,
either directly or through clothing, of the genitalia, anus,
groin,breast, inner thigh, or buttocks, or the introduction
of any object into the genitalia, anus or mouth, of any
person, whether of the same or opposite sex, with an
intent to abuse, humiliate, harass, degrade, or arouse or
gratify the sexual desire of any person, bestiality,
masturbation, lascivious exhibition of the genitals or
[pubic] area of a person. x x x Indubitably, AAA was
deemed to be [a] "child subjected to other sexual abuse"
as defined above. Accordingly, the imposable penalty
should be the penalty prescribed under RA 7610 and not
the penalty under Article 336 of the RPC as imposed by the
court a quo. In People v. Leonardo, the Supreme Court
ruled that the penalty to be imposed for violation of
Section 5, Article III of RA 7610 is as follows:
For acts of lasciviousness performed on a child under
Section 5(b), Article III of Republic Act No. 7610, the
penalty prescribed is reclusion temporalin its medium
period to reclusion perpetua. Notwithstanding that
Republic Act No. 7610 is a special law, the [accused-]
appellant may enjoy the benefits of the Indeterminate
Sentence Law.
qumivel braga v people
The Undersigned Assistant City Prosecutor of Ligao City
hereby accuses EDUARDO QUIMVEL y BRAGA also known
as EDWARD/EDUARDO QUIMUEL y BRAGA of the crime of
Acts of Lasciviousness in relation to Section 5(b) of R.A. No.
7610, committed as follows:
That on or about 8 o'clock in the evening of July 18, 2007
at Palapas, Ligao City, Philippines, and within the
jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named
accused, with lewd and unchaste design, through force
and intimidation, did then and there, willfully, unlawfully
and feloniously, insert his hand inside the panty of [AAA],
21 a minor of 7 years old and mash her vagina, against her
will and consent, to her damage and prejudice.
f: Braga was the helper of AAA's grandparents. While
AAA's parents were away, Braga came to their house to
deliver goods from AAA's grandparents. As there was no
electricity, AAA asked Braga to stay with them as they
were afraid. AAA and her siblings then went to sleep.
sleep. However, she was awakened when she felt
Quimuel's right leg on top of her body. She likewise sensed
Quimvel inserting his right hand inside her panty. In a trice,
she felt Quimvel caressing her private part. She removed
his hand.
Quimvel was about to leave when YYYfather arrived. She
asked him what he was doing in his house. Quimvel replied
that he was just accompanying the children. After he left,
YYY and his children went back to sleep. XXXmother then
came home and she asked them what they were doing
while she was away. BBB told her that Quimvel touched
her Ate. When XXX asked AAA what Quimvel did to her,
she recounted that Quimvel laid down beside her and
touched her vagina.
Upon hearing this, XXX and YYY went to the Office of the
Barangay Tanod and thereafter to the police station to
report the incident. Afterwards, they brought AAA to a
doctor for medical examination.
Quimvel denied the imputation.
rtc - Acts of Lasciviousness in relation to Section 5 (b),
Article III of R.A. 7610 and thereby sentenced him to suffer
the penalty of imprisonment from FOURTEEN (14) YEARS,
EIGHT (8) MONTHS and ONE (1) DAY of Reclusion
Temporal in its medium period as minimum to FIFTEEN
(15) YEARS, SIX (6) MONTHS and NINETEEN (19) DAYS of
Reclusion Temporal in its medium period as maximum
ca - affirmed
issues:
1. The CA erred in affirming the decision of the trial court
as the prosecution was not able to prove that he is guilty
of the crime charged beyond reasonable doubt.
2. Assuming without admitting that he is guilty hereof, he
may be convicted only of acts of lasciviousness under Art.
336 of the Revised Penal Code (RPC) and not in relation to
Sec. 5(b) of RA 7610.
h:
liable under ra 7610 not art. 336
According to him, to be held liable under the latter law, it
is necessary that the victim is involved in or subjected to
prostitution or other sexual abuse, and that the failure to
allege such element constituted a violation of his
constitutional right to be informed of the nature and the
cause of accusation against him.
art. 3 SECTION 14. (1) No person shall be held to answer
for a criminal offense without due process of law.
(2) In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall be
presumed innocent until the contrary is proved, and shall
enjoy the right to be heard by himself and counsel, to be
informed of the nature and cause of the accusation against
him, to have a speedy, impartial, and public trial, to meet
the witnesses face to face, and to have compulsory
process to secure the attendance of witnesses and the
production of evidence in his behalf. However, after
arraignment, trial may proceed notwithstanding the
absence of the accused provided that he has been duly
notified and his failure to appear is unjustifiable.
His theory is that the Information only charges him of the
crime as punished under Art. 336 of the RPC, which
pertinently reads:
Art. 336. Acts of lasciviousness.-Any person who shall
commit any act of lasciviousness upon other persons of
either sex, under any of the circumstances mentioned on
the preceding article, shall be punished by prision
correccional.
Conviction thereunder requires that the prosecution
establish the following elements:
1. That the offender commits any act of lasciviousness or
lewdness;
2. That it is done under any of the following circumstances:
18
a) Through force, threat, or intimidation;
b) When the offended party is deprived of reason or
otherwise unconsc10us;
c) By means of fraudulent machination or grave abuse of
authority;
d) When the offended party is under twelve (12) years of
age or is demented, even though none of the
circumstances mentioned above be present; and
3. That the offended party is another person of either sex.
On the other hand, the prosecution endeavored to prove
petitioner's guilt beyond reasonable doubt for child abuse
under Sec. 5(b) of RA 7610, which provides:
Section 5. Child Prostitution and Other Sexual Abuse. -
Children, whether male or female, who for money, profit,
or any other consideration or due to the coercion or
influence of any adult, syndicate or group, indulge in
sexual intercourse or lascivious conduct, are deemed to be
children exploited in prostitution and other sexual abuse.
The penalty of reclusion temporal in its medium period to
reclusion perpetua shall be imposed upon the following:
x x x x(b) Those who commit the act of sexual intercourse
or lascivious conduct with a child exploited in prostitution
or subject to other sexual abuse; Provided, That when the
[victim] is under twelve (12) years of age, the perpetrators
shall be prosecuted under Article 335, paragraph 3, for
rape and Article 336 of Act No. 3815, as amended, the
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; x x x
Before an accused can be held criminally liable for
lascivious conduct under Sec. 5(b) of RA 7610, the
requisites of Acts of Lasciviousness as penalized under Art.
336 of the RPC earlier enumerated must be met in
addition to the requisites for sexual abuse under Sec. 5(b)
of RA 7610, which are as follows: 19
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. That child, whether male or female, is below 18 years of
age
petitioner nevertheless contends that the second
additional element, requiring that the victim is a child
"exploited in prostitution or subjected to other sexual
abuse, " is absent in this case
allegations are sufficient to classify the victim as one
"exploited in prostitution or subject to other sexual
abuse." This is anchored on the very definition of the
phrase in Sec. 5 of RA 7610, which encompasses children
who indulge 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.23
Correlatively, Sec. 5(a) of RA 7610 punishes acts pertaining
to or connected with child prostitution wherein the child is
abused primarily for profit. On the other hand, paragraph
(b) punishes sexual intercourse or lascivious conduct
committed on a child subjected to other sexual abuse. It
covers not only a situation where a child is abused for
profit but also one in which a child, through coercion,
intimidation or influence, engages in sexual intercourse or
lascivious conduct.24 Hence, the law punishes not only
child prostitution but also other forms of sexual abuse
against children.
on threat coercion etc etc
no "coercion or influence" on info
Sec. 9, Rule 110 of the Rules of Court
Section 9. Cause of the accusation. - 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.
Furthermore, "[t]he use of derivatives or synonyms or
allegations of basic facts constituting the offense charged
is sufficient " Hence, the exact phrase "exploited in
prostitution or subjected to other abuse" need not be
mentioned in the Information. Even the words "coercion
or influence" need not specifically appear.
Under Article 336 of the RPC, the accused performs the
acts of lasciviousness on a child who is neither exploited in
prostitution nor subjected to "other sexual abuse." In
contrast, under Section 5 of RA 7610, the accused
performs the acts of lasciviousness on a child who is either
exploited in prostitution or subjected to "other sexual
abuse."
Section 5 of RA 7610 deals with a situation where the acts
of lasciviousness are committed on a child already either
exploited in prostitution or subjected to "other sexual
abuse." Clearly, the acts of lasciviousness committed on
the child are separate and distinct from the other
circumstance that the child is either exploited in
prostitution or subjected to "other sexual abuse.
Contrary to the exposition, the very definition of "child
abuse" under Sec. 3(b) of RA 7610 does not require that
the victim suffer a separate and distinct act of sexual
abuse aside from the act complained of. For it refers to the
maltreatment, whether habitual or not, of the child. Thus,
a violation of Sec. 5(b) of RA 7610 occurs even though the
accused committed sexual abuse against the child victim
only once, even without a prior sexual affront.
There need not be a third person subjecting the exploited
child to other abuse
the offense was committed and, hence, he cannot be
prosecuted under RA 7610-is bereft of merit. When the
victim of the crime is a child under twelve (12) years old,
mere moral ascendancy will suffice.
Petitioner, on the other hand, was known to the victim
and her siblings as the caretaker of their grandmother's
ducks. Thus, when petitioner brought some vegetable
viand to the victim's house at the day the crime was
committed; he was requested by the children to stay with
them because they were afraid. AAA entrusted to
petitioner her safety and that of her siblings, only to be
betrayed. In this situation, the Court finds that because of
the relative seniority of petitioner and the trust reposed in
him, petitioner abused the full reliance of AAA and
misused his ascendancy over the victim. These
circumstances can be equated with "intimidation" or
"influence" exerted by an adult, covered by Sec. 5(b) of RA
7610. Ergo, the element of being subjected to sexual abuse
is met.
guilty for acts of lasciviousness in relation to ra 7610
SENTENCED to suffer the indeterminate imprisonment of
twelve (12) years and one (1) day of reclusion temporal in
its minimum period as minimum to fifteen (15) years. six
(6) months. and twenty-one(21) days of reclusion
temporal in its medium period as maximum.

The intervention by a third person is not necessary to

convict an accused under Sec. 5 of RA 7610. As regards
paragraph (a), a child may engage in sexual intercourse or
lascivious conduct regardless of whether or not a "bugaw "
is present. Although the presence of an offeror or a pimp is
the typical set up in prostitution rings, this does not
foreclose the possibility of a child voluntarily submitting
himself or herself to another's lewd design for
consideration, monetary or otherwise, without third
person intervention. Needless to say, the child, would still
be under the protection of the law, and the offender, in
such a situation, could still be held criminally liable for
violation of Sec. 5(a) of RA 7610.

"(b). Sec. 5 of RA 7610 even provides that the offense can

be committed by "any adult, syndicate or group, " without
qualification."

As regards the second additional element, it is settled that

the child is deemed subjected to other sexual abuse when
the child engages in lascivious conduct under the coercion
or influence of any adult. 52 Intimidation need not
necessarily be irresistible. It is sufficient that some
compulsion equivalent to intimidation annuls or subdues
the free exercise of the will of the offended party. 53 The
law does not require physical violence on the person of
the victim; moral coercion or ascendancy is sufficient. 54

The petitioner's proposition-that there is not even an iota

of proof of force or intimidation as AAA was asleep when