CHILD PORN - RA 9744
CHILD ABUSE- RA 7610, 7658, 9231
7610
(Special Protection of Children Againt Child Abuse, 2. Whether Malto violated Sec 5(b), Art. III , RA 7610?
Exploitation, and Discrimination Act)
3. Whether the fact that AAA and Malto were
Malto v People (2007)
Facts
AAA was a college student, 17 yo, at the Assumption
College. Michael Malto, 28 yo, was the professor of
AAA in her philosophy class in first semester SY 1997-
1998.
AAA was having lunch with her friends when Mike
joined their group. AAA and herfriends were discussing
a movie, Mike butted in and bragged that it was nothing
compared to hiscollection of xxx-rated films;
he then invited the group to view his collection. Upon
thereiteration of Mike's invitation, AAA and two of her
friends went with him. They checked in at alodge. He
suggested that they just cuddle up together. They
resisted, until he relented. AAA andher friends
regretted having accepted petitioners invitation.
For fear of embarrassment in case their classmates got
wind of what happened, they agreed to keep things a
secret. Meanwhile,petitioner apologized for his
actuations.
Prior to the incident, petitioner and AAA had a
mutualunderstanding and became sweethearts.
Upon receiving her class card in Philosophy II, she
protested to the petitioner for givinghim a final grade of
3 well in fact her midterm grade was 1.2.
After their confrontation, thepetitioner gave him a grade
of 1.5 promising that she wont disclose their intimate
messages toanyone and the affairs they had as it could
jeopardize his job. Pressured and afraid of
thepetitioners threat to end their relationship, AAA
succumbed and both had sexual intercourse.
On the Latter part of their relationship, AAA learned
that he was either intimately involved with or was
sexually harassing his students in Assumption College
and in other collegeswhere he taught; thats why she
decided to end up her relationship with the petitioner. It
was thenthat AAA realized that she was actually
abused by petitioner. Depressed and distressed,
sheconfided all that happened between her and
petitioner to her mother, BBB. Upon discovery of what
AAA underwent, BBB, AAAs mother lodged a
complaint in the Office of the CityProsecutor of Pasay
City which led to the filing of Criminal Case No. 00-
0691.
Information against Malto was amended from
violation of Sec 5(b) to 5(a), of Art III RA 7610 before
the RTC of Pasay City.
RTC : convicted him of violating Sec 5(a) , Art. III of RA
7610
CA affirmed RTC finding
Issue
1. Whether the wrongful designation of offense vitiate
information charged agaisnt Malto? NO
MB FELLONE
2020- A
YES
sweethearts made the sexual intercourse
consensual, acquitting him of rape? NO
Held
The offense stated in the information was wrongly
designated
The designation of offense was changed from
violation of Sec. 5(b) to violation of 5(a) Art III of Ra
7610.
Par(a) punishes acts pertaining to and connected
with child prostitution. It contemplates sexual abuse of
child exploited in prostitution for profit.
Par (b) punishes sexual intercourse or lascivious
conduct not only with a child exploited in prostitution
but also with a child subjected to other sexual abuse. It
covers not only situation where a child is abused for
profit but also one which a child through coercion,
intimidation, or influence engages in sexual intercourse
or lascivious conduct.
What it charged was that Malto had carnal knowledge
with AAA, who was her professor. AAA was seduced
by Malto who indulged her to have sexual intercourse
with her.
The real nature of offense is determined by facts alleged in
the information, not by designation
Designation of offense is imperative to avoid surpise on
the accused and to afford him the opportunity to
prepare his defense. Failure to designate offense does
not vitiate the informaiton of facts alleged clearly. What
controls is not title of nformation but the actual facts
recited.
The facts stated in the amended information against
petitioner correctly made out a charge for violation of
Sec 5(b) , Art. III. Thus even trial and appellate court
followed the wrong designation of the offense,
petitioner could be convicted of the offense on the
basis of the facts recited and proven during trial.
Malto violated Sec 5(b) Art. III of RA 7610
First element present (acts committed) petitioner
committed sexual intercourse and lascivious conduct
against AAA
Second element present (state or condition of
offended party) due to the influence of petitioner,
AAA indulged in lascivious conduct with her. She was
deemed to be a child subjected to other sexual abuse.
Third element present (minority or age of offended
party)
o Children below 18 years of age.
o AAA was below 18.
The conviction was proper.
Violation of Sec 5(b) Art III of RA 7610 and Rape are separate
and distinct crimes
1
 The offense for which he was convicted is punished by
special law, while rape is a felony under RPC. They
have different elements. The two are separate and
distinct.
Petitioner can be held liable for violation of Sec
5(b), Art III despite a finding that he did not commit
rape.
Consent of child is immaterial in criminal cases involving
violation of Sec 5, Art III of RA 7610
Sweetheart theory for purposes of sexual intercourse
and lascivious conduct in child abuse cases under RA
7610 is unacceptable. The sweetheart theory applies
in acts of lasciviousness and rape, felonies commited
against or without the consent of the victim.
o 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. A child
exploited in prostittuion or subjected to
other sexual abuse cannot validly give
consent to sexual intercourse with
another person.
Consent is immaterial in cases involving such because
the offense is malum prohibitum, evil is proscribed.
Petitioner may enjoy benefit of ISL
Petition denied, found guilty of violating Sec 5(b),
Art III of RA 7610.
People v Matias (2012)
Facts
Jover Matias and AAA were neighbors. AAA who was
a minor (13 year old) was on her way to the vegetable
stall when Matias pulled her towards a house that was
under construction. He forced her to lie on a bambo
bed, removed her shorts, and underwear and inserted
his finger and then penis while threatening to kill her
should he report the incident to anyone.
When AAA got home, she narrated to her mother what
happened and what Matias did to her. They proceeded
to barangay to report incident and filed a complaint to
the police station and AAA afterwards underwent a
physical exam.
RTC : convicted appellant for rape
o Gave full credence to AAAs testimony which
was straightforward and positive.
CA : affirmed RTC decision
o He must able to show that he was a great
distance awat from the place of incident.
o Unlikely for a young girl to fabricate story.
Issue
Whether CA committed reversible error in affirming in toto
the decision of RTC which convicted appellant of rape
under Sec 5(b) of Art. III, RA 7610? NO
Held
Under Sec 5(b) of Art. III, R 7610 in relation to RA
8358,
If victim of sexual abuse is below 12 years of age,
MB FELLONE
2020- A
o the offender should not be prosecuted for
sexual abuse but for statutory rape under
Art. 266-A(1)(d) of the RPC and penalized
with RP on the other hand
If victim is 12 years or older
o Offender should be charged with either
sexual abuse under Sec 5(b) of RA
7610 or
rape under Art. 266-A (except par.
1[d]) of RP
o People v Pangilinan
However, the offender cannot be
accused of both crimes for the same
act because his right
against double jeopardy will be
prejudiced.
NOTE!!!
A person cannot be subjected
twice to a criminal liability for a
single criminal act.
Likewise, a rape cannot be
complexed with a violation of Sec
5(b) of RA 7610. Under Sec 48 of
RPC (on complex crimes), a
felony under RPC such as rape,
cannot be complexed with an
offense penalized by a special
law.
The penalty for sexual abuse under Sec 5(b) Art III
of RA 7610 is RP med RP while rape under Art.
266-A of RPC is penalized with RP.
o Since AAA was 13 years old at the time of
commission of offense, Matias may be liable
under either Sec 5(b), Art III RA 7610 for
sexual abuse or rape under Art. 266-A except
par. 1[d].
Flordeliz v People (2010)
Facts
Father of AAA (14 yo) and BBB (11 yo) was charged
with 1 count of Acts of lasciviousness for abusing
AAA and 9 counts of Rape for abusing BBB before
the RTC Baguio City.
In March 1995, ABC the wife of Salvador Flordeliz left
for Malaysia to work. A month after, while BBB and
AAA (11 years old) was sleeping, Flordeliz woke AAA
up and played with her private area which brought pain
to AAA. Flordeliz committed the same acts to AAA
repeatedly.
Not long after, Flordeliz was convicted of homicide and
imprisoned in Muntinlupa. BBB and AAA lived with their
grandparents. AAA and BBB visited him and sent him
greeing cards
Flordeliz released on parole, would fetch BBB and
AAA. Unsatisfied with the abuses committed against
AAA, he started molesting BBB.
o Jan 3, 2003 While they were sleeping, BBB
inserted 2 fingers in BBBs vagina. BBB did
not attempt to stop petitioner because of fear.
o Feb 8 2003: flordeliz visited BBB and played
with her vagina ang inserted gingers
o Same incident before AAAs birthday,
committed same acts but for longer period.
2
 o During all saints day, BBB spent two nights Paragraph (b) punishes sexual intercourse or
with father and same sexual abuse lascivious conduct not only with a child exploited
happened. in prostitution, but also with a child subjected to
Despite these incidents, BBB did not reveal her ordeal other sexual abuses. It covers not only a situation
to anybody for fear of her life and that of her mother. where a child is abused for progit but also where
It was revealed only by AAA to her mother when the one through coercion, intimidation, or influence,
latter arrived home for a vacation and then upon asking engages in sexual intercourse or lascivious
of her mother, BBB likewise admitted the repeated conduct with a child.
abuse. The mother reported incident to the NBI. TAKE NOTE!!!
Defense However, pursuant to the provision, before
o He was a food father, where her daughters accused can be convicted for child abuse through
reside, ther rooms were separated by see- lascivious conduct committed against a minor
through curtains. ABC was an infidel mother. BELOW 12 yo, the requisites for acts of lascivious
o Denied the allegations fabricated story daw conduct under Art 336 of RPC must be met in
RTC addition to requisites of sexual abuse under
o Petitioner guilty for 9 counts of sexual assault Section 5 of RA 7610 must be met.
and act of lasciviusness.
CA
o Affirmed petitioners conviction. ELEMENTS
Acts of lasciviousness Sexual abuse
Issue 1. Offender commits 1. accused commits
any act of act of sexual
lasciviousness or intercourse or
Held lewdness lascivious conduct
On RAPE THROUGH SEXUAL ASSAULT of BBB 2. It is done under the 2. act performed with
o BBB clearly narrated 7 separate occassions ff circumstances a child exploited in
when petitioner woke her up, held her private - force / intimidation prostitution or
part, played with it, and inserted her fingers. -offended party subjected to other
o Insertion of fingers : crime of rape through deprived of sexual abuse
sexual assault under RA 8353 or the Anti- reason/unconscious 3. the child, whether
Rape Law of 1997. Art 266-A (2) -offended party female/male, is
By any person who under any of under 12 yo below 18 years old
circumstances mentioner in Par. 1 of
266-A commit an act of sexual 3. Offended party is
assault by inserting his penis into another person of
another persons mouth or anal either sex
orifice, or any instrument or object
into genital or anal orifice of another In this case, petitioners act of touching AAAs
person. vagina and playing with it obviously amounted to
o Attended by aggravating circumstances of lascivious conduct.
relationship and minority. The character of the crime is not determined by the
On the other 2 counts of rape through sexual assault of caption or preamble of the information nor by the
BBB specification of the provision of law alleged to have
o A perusal of the transcipt of the prosecution been violated but by recital of the ultimate facts
witnesses testimonies, reveals that no such and circumstances in the complaint or information
incident took place. No details were related by o The court is aware that the information
BBB herself as to the circumstances provided specifically charged petitioner with acts of
under the information in the 2 criminal cases. lasciviousness under RPC without stating that
On ACTS OF LASCIVIOUSNESS upon AAA it was in relation to RA 7610. The failure to
o At the time of commission, AAA was 11 years designate the offense by statute or mention
old. The application of Sec 5, Art III of RA the specific provision penalizing the act, or an
7610 applies. erroneous specification of law, does not
o Sec 5 Child Prostitution and Other Sexual vitiate the informaiton if facts alleged clearly
Abuses recite the facts constituting crime charged
(b) those who commit the act of sexual Guilty 7 counts of rape, 1 count of acts of lasciviousnes
intercourse or lascivious conduct with a and not guilty in the 2 criminal cases re rape.
child exploited in prostitution or subject
to other sexual abuse
o provided, that victim is under People v Dahilig (2011)
12, the perpetrators shall be
prosecuted under Facts
o Art. 335, par 3 for rape & AAA (16 years old) and accused, Eduardo Dahilig
o Art. 336 of Act. 3815 for rape were househelpers by a certain Karen Gomez.
or lascivious conduct as According to the prosecution, AAA was lying in bed
the case may be with Roxanne (fellow-helper) in their room when the

MB FELLONE
2020- A
3
 crime took place. Because it was hot and humid, AAA
transferred to the floor. At that time, she felt someone
touching her and she found out it was Dahilig.
She shouted for help but even Roxanne did not hear
her as she was sound asleep. She resisted his
advances but he succeeded in pinning her down. Then,
he forced his penis into her vagina which brought her
pain. After he was done he returned to his quarters in
the third floor.
AAA angrily confronted Dahilig and asked him why he
did such an act. He reacted by getting all his
belongings and immediately left the employers house.
AAA upon informing her employer of the incident
helped her file a case against Dahilig. This caused the
arrest of the accused who offered to marry AAA. AAA
rejected because she was detemined to seek justice
for the ordeal she suffered.
Defense
o Denied having raped AAA. Dahilig stated that
AAA was her girlfriend at that time of the
incident and what transpired between them
was consensual. There was an incident on
Nov. 10 when she went up to the floor where
he was sleeping and had sex with him.
Afterwards, AAA returned to her room.
o His alleged former girlfriend, Roxanne
allegedly demanded that he choose between
her or AAA.
o On the day of the incident, he was very tired
and decided to lie down on the floor where
AAA and Roxanne were sleeping. They made
love (4 am WOW) at that time he noticed
Roxanne was awake. AAA and Roxanne
quarelled (Roxanne threatened to stab them)
due to the incident and to ease the tension, he
left the employers house on the promise to
AAA that he would come back for her. He
stayed in Bulacan for 2 months and when he
sent his grandfather and mom to fetch AAA,
she wouldnt come with them without Dahilig.
o HE received the subpoena informing him
of his charge of rape but due to lack of
funds he couldnt attend hearings. Then he
was arrested.
RTC
o AAA never wavered in assertion that Dahilig
molested her. Sweetheart defense cannot be
given credence in the absence of
corroborative proof like love notes,
mementos, pictures to name a few.
o Charged with rape (violation of Art. 266-A
par. 1 in relation to Art. 266-B 1st par. of
RPC) as amended by Art. 8353 in further
relation to Sec. 5(a) of RA 8369)
CA
o Affirmed RTC finding but clarified that the
crime should have been Child Abuse
penalized under Sec 5(b) of RA 7610. The
complainant was a minor 16 years old at the
time of commission of offense, child subject to
sexual abuse.
Issue
Whether accused sexually abused AAA? YES
What crime has been committed?
RAPE (violation of Art. 266-A par 1. In relation to
Art. 266-B 1st par. of RPC or CHILD ABUSE?
MB FELLONE
2020- A
Held
There was sexual abuse. The act was not consensual.
Dahilig held AAAs hands very tightly. The fact that
Roxanne was not awakened by the cries of help of AAA
does not negate her categorical and consistent
assertion that the accused focribly defiled her.
o For sweetheart theory defense to prosper,
the existence of the supposed relationship
must be proven by convincing substantial
evidence
o Failure to adduce such evidence renders the
claim to be self-selving and of no probative
value. For the satisfcation of the Court, there
should be a corroboration by their common
friends or, if none, a substantiation by tokens
of such a relationship such as love letters,
gifts, pictures, and the like.
Both elements of both crimes are present.
People v Abay
o In the case that the victim is 12 years or
older, the offender should be charged with
either
sexual abuse under Sec 5(b) of RA
7610/
rape under Art. 2660A (except par.
1[d]).
o However, the offender cannot be accused
of both crimes for the same act because
his right against double jeopardy will be
prejudiced. A person cannot be subjected
twice to criminal liability for a single
criminal act.
Accordingly the accused can be charged with
either RAPE/CHILD ABUSE ; considering however
that the information correctly charged the accused
with rape in violationof Art. 266-A par. 1 in relation
to 266-B 1st par. of RPC, CA should have merely
affirmed conviction.
RTC decision reinstated. CRIME OF RAPE!
Garingarao v People (2011)
Facts
AAA, 16 years old, was confined upon
recommendation of the attending physician Dr.
Morante in the Virgen Milagrosa Medical Center when
the latter complained about her fever and abdominal
pain.
Afterwards when the parents of AAA left the hospital,
(Father when to Pangasinan to process daughters
papers for Medicare | Mother went to their store), Jojit
Garingarao, who was the nurse on duty willfully,
unlawfully and feloniously touched the breast of AAA,
and inserted his finger into his vagina on the reason
that he was just examining her. It was only when he
learned that AAA had her monthly period that
Garingarao stopped molesting her.
AAA told her parents she wanted to leave the hospital.
When they left the hospital, AAA cried to her parents
as she recalled what happened to her. The parents with
AAA went back to the hospital to report the incident and
was learned of Garingaraos identity.
4
 Prosecution
o Presented birth certificate showing AAA was
16 years old
o Medical records of confinement
o Schedule of duties of nurses ; showed
Garingaraos duty
o Certificate from Department of Education
showing that BBB was present in the office
o Medical Payment Notice
Indicdent report fled by AAAs [arents
o Letter from hospital re administrative action
filed against Garingao
Defense
o Garingarao alleged that he went inside AAAs
room to administer her medicine and check
her vital signs with nursing aide, Edmundo
Tamayo. He always had an aide whenever he
visits rooms of patients.
o The complaint was only filed by AAAs father
to get even with him because they got into a
heated argument when AAAs father allegedly
told him that they didnt administer the
medicines properly and on time.
RTC GARINGAO GUILTY
o Charged with violation of Acts of
Lasciviousness in relation to RA 7610.
o Prosecution was able to establish that BBB
and CCC were not in the room when
Garingarao went inside.
o Illogical for BBB to convince daughter to
fabricate the story of sexual abuse just to get
even with Garingarao.
CA GUILTY, AFFIRMED RTC DECISION
MODIFIED
o While Garingarao was charged for acts of
lascviousness in relation to 7610, he should
be convicted under 7610 because AAA was
16 years old at the time the crime was
committed.
o Under Sec 5(b) of RA 7610 the offender
shall be charged with rape or lascivious
conduct under the RPC when victim is
below 12 years old, otherwise, 7610 shall
prevail.
o Section 2(h) of Rules and REgualtions on
Reporting and iNvestigation of Child Abuse
Cases, includes the introduction of any object
into the genitalia and intentional touching of
breasts.
Facts
Issue
Whether CA erred in affirming RTC decision? - NO
Whether he should have been convicted only of
acts of lasciviousness and not violation of 7610
since there was only 1 incident when he allegedly
touched AAA? NO
Held
Held that CA did not err in finding him guilty of the
acts of lasciviousness in relation to RA 7610.
o Denial and alibi are weak defenses
o Shallow defense of dad getting even over
a heated argument
Elements of Sexual abuse under Sec 5, Art III 7610
MB FELLONE
2020- A
o accused committed sexual intercourse /
lascivious conduct
o performed act with a child exploited in
prostitution or subjected to other sexual
abuse
o child, whether male or female, below 18 years
of age
Lascivious Conduct (Sec 32, Art XIII, IRR of RA
7610)
o 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 pesrson, whether of the
same or opposite sex, with the intent to
abuse, hummiliate, harrass, degrade, arouse,
gratify the sexual desire of any person,
beastiality, masturbation, lascvious exhibition
of the genitals or public area of a person.
A child is deemed subject ot other sexual abuse
when the child is the victim of lascvious conduct
under coercion or influence of any adult. In
lascivious conductthere must be some form of
compulsion equivalent to intimidation which
subdues the free exercise of the offended partys
free will.
o The Court has ruled that a child is deemed
subject to other sexual abuse when the child
is the victim of lasciviousness conduct under
the coercion or influence of any adult.
o In lascivious conduct under the coercion
or influence of any adult, there must be
some form of compulsion equivalent to
intimidation which subdues the free
exercise of the offeded partys free will.
In this case, Garingaraocoerced AAA into submitting to
his lascivious acts by pretending he was examining
her.
It was inconsequential that sexual abuse under RA
7610 occurred only once
o Section 3(b) of RA 7610 provides that sexual
abuse under RA 7610 may be habitual or not.
Hence, the fact that the offense occurred only
once is enough to hold Garingarao liable for
acts of lasciviousness under 7610.
People v Olayon (2008)
Gaspar Olayon was charged with 2 informations in
RTC Pasig for violation of Section 10(a) of RA 7610
o Crim Case 112571: for committing lewd and
lascivious acts and committing sexual
intercourse with AAA who was 14 years old, a
minor. (10 am)
o Crim Case 112572 : having sexual
intercourse and committing lewd design and
lascivious act with AAA who was 14 years
old. (2 pm)
o Another case was filed in RTC Taguig with the
same victim
The three cases were jointly tried.
Olayons defense
o They were sweethearts
o Whatever happened she consented
5
 RTC OLAYON GUILTY
o Olayon acquitted for acts of lasciviousness,
but found guilty of violation of Sec 10(a) RA
7610.
o Court ruled that AAAs actions did not support
her testimony that she did not consented
They went to house of Duke Espitu
with accused voluntarily and was
fetched from a tricycle stand to go to
the said house.
At the house, she could have easily
shoited for help as the house was
near the road.
o AAAs minority nontheless was taken
advantage by Olayon, and consent is not an
accepted defense in special law.
CA OLAYON ACQUITTED
o Acts of Child Abuse under Section 10
refers to those listed under Sec 3(b) of RA
7610.
o Consensual sexual intercourse between
Olayon and AAA does not fall under the
sexual abuse defined in Sec 5 of RA 7610
which is completely distinct and separate
offense from child abuse under Section 10
because sexual abuse pertains to and is
associated with child prostitution due to
coercion or influence of any adult.
o In this case, consent having freely given since
there was no allegation that neither coercion
nor intimidation was found to have ben
present.
Issue
Whther consensual sexual intercourse with a minor is
classified as child abuse under Section 10 of RA 7610?
Held
Sexual abuse defined under Section 5 of RA 7610
is a completely and distinct and separate offense
from child abuse as defined under Sec 10.
Consensual intercourse or even acts of
lasciviousness with a minor who is 12 years old or
older could constitute a violation of Section 5 (b) of
RA 7610
o Section 10 refers to acts of child abuse
prejudicial to childs development other
than chld prostitution and other sexual
abuse under Section 5, such as:
Attempt to commit child prostitution,
child trafficking, and obscene
publications and indecent shows
Consensual Sexual Intercourse or Lascivious
conduct with minor who is not exploitated in
prostitution falls within the purview of Section 5(b)
of RA 7610 persuasion, inducement, enticement,
or coercion of the child must be present
Consensual sexual intercourse could constitue a
ciolation of Sec 5(b) of RA 7610 committed against
a child exploited not only in prostittuion but also a
child subjected to other sexual abuse.
o Sec 2(g) of the Rules and Regulations on the
Reporting and investigation of Child Abuse
Cases defines sexual abuse as including : the
employmnet, use, persuasion,
MB FELLONE
2020- A
inducement, enticement, or coercion of
achild to engage in or assist another
person to engage in, sexual intercourse or
lascivious conduct or the molestation,
prostitution, or incest with children.
o For consensual sexual intercourse or
lascivious conduct with a minor, who is
not exploited in prostitution, to thus fall
within the purview of Sec 5(b) of RA 7610,
persuasion, inducement, enticement,
coercion, of the child must be present.
In the case at bar, even if the accused were charged
under Sec. 5(b), instead of Sec. 10(a), he would just
still be acquitted as there was no allegation that an
element of the offense coercion or influence or
intimidaton attended its commission.
o In People v Larin: the information alleged that
therein accused took advantage of his
authority, influence, and moral acendancy as
trainor/swimming instructor of the minor victim
which the Court found constituted
psychological coercion.
o In convicitng the therein accused for
lascivious conducts, the Court held: it must be
noted that RA 7610 covers not only a situation
in which a child is abused for profit, but one in
which a child, through coercion or intimidation
engages in any lascivious conduct.
Caballo v People (2013)
Facts
AAA (17 yo) met Christian Cabello (23 yo) at her
uncles place in Surigao. Her uncle was a
choreographer and Cabello was one of his dancers.
AAA was a sophomore college student at University of
San Carlos.
They eventually became sweethearts and in the last
week of March in the year 1998, Cabello persuaded
AAA to have sexual intercourse with him which was
followed by several more. AAA became pregnant a
year later.
On March 1999, an information was filed charging
Cabello of violation of Section 10(a) Article VI of RA
7610 before the RTC was later amended to include
statemetns pertaining to the delivery of private
complainant AAAs baby.
o Did then and there willfully, unlawfully
feloniously commit sexual abuse upon AAA
by persuading and inducing the latter to have
sexual intercourse with him which resulted to
her untimely pregnancy, a condition
prejudicial to her development to the
damage and prejudice of AAA.
Prosecution
o Caballo was only able to induce her to have
sex due to promises of marriage and
assurance that he would not get her pregnant
due to use of withdrawal method.
o When she got pregnant, Caballo advised her
to have abortion. When efforts of such
remained unsuccesful, AAA told her mother
Defense
o AAA no longer virgin no bleeding
6
 o Had 3 prior bofrineds before him
o They were sweethearts who lived in together
for 1 week in a hotel and another at her
uncles house.
o They broke up because of parents
intervention. She wanted to marry her but
could not because AAa refused because she
was still studying.
RTC -GUILTY
o Found him guilty of violating Sec 10 (a) Art. VI
of RA 7610 in relation to Sec 2 of Rules on
Child Abuse Cases
CA GUILTY
o affirmed RTC ruling finding Caballo guilty og
violating Sec 5(b) Art III of RA 7610
o Prosecution clearly showed that Cabello
persuaded, induced, and enticed AAA, then
minor to have carnal knowledge with him.
o Repeated assurance of love and withdrawal
method repeated coaxing succumbed AAA
to his evil desires
Issue
Whether the phrase due to the coercion or influence of any
adult classify AAA as a child exploitated in prostitution
and other sexual abuse under Sec 5, Art III of Ra 7610? -
YES
Held
Sec 5(b), Art III of RA 7610
Children Prostitution and Other Sexual Abuse
o 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.
o (b) Those who commit the act of sexual
intercourse or lascivious conduct with a
child exploitated in prostitution or subject
to other sexual abuse.
Elements of the offense (Olivarez v CA)
o Accused commits act of sexual intercourse/
lasvious conduct
o Performed with child exploited
In prostitution or
Subjected to other sexual abuse
o Child whether male or female under 18 years
old
The first and third element was present.
Intention of the law
o Afford special protecction to children against
all forms of abuse neglect, cruelty
exploitation, discrimination, other conditions
prejudicial to development
o Best interest of the child
Deliberations of the senate shows that Congress
really intended to cover situations 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.
Court defined
MB FELLONE
2020- A
o INFLUENCE improper use of power or trust
in any way that deprives a person of free will
and substitutes anothers objective.
o COERCION improper use of power to
compel another to submit to th ewishes of one
who wields it .
As presently worded, when a child indulges in
sexual intercourse or any lascivious conduct due
to the coercion or influence of any adult, the child
is deemed to be a child exploitated in prostittuion
or other secxual abuse.
o Corollary with Sec 2(g) of Rules on Child
Abuse cases conveys sexual abuse
involves the element of influence which
manifests in a variety of forms.
IN the case
o FIRST, element of AAAs minority. She was
only 17 years old and hence not capable of
fully understanding or knowing the import of
her actions.
Consent is immaterial in cases
involving violation of Sec 5, Art III of
7610. Being a malum prohibitum.
o SECOND, Cabellos seniority. He was 23 yars
old at the time of commission of the offense,
6 years older than AAA.
The age disparity between an adult
and a minor placed Caballo in a
stronger position over AAA so as to
enable him to force his will upon
later.
o THIRD, Caballos actions constitute overt acts
of coercion and influence
Love, withdrawal method
o FOURTH, the brash and unexpected manner
in which Caballo pursued AAA to her room
and pressed on her to have sex with him,
effectively placed in to a certain extent, a
position of duress.
Petition DENIED. Resolution of CA Affirmed.
7