Page 1 of 10
R.A. 7610
Section 1. Title. – This Act shall be known as the "Special Protection of
Children Against Abuse, Exploitation and Discrimination Act."
R.A. 7610
Section 1. Title. – This Act shall be known as the "Special Protection
of Children Against Abuse, Exploitation and Discrimination Act."
Section 3. Definition of Terms.
(a) "Children" refers to person below eighteen (18) years of age or those
over but are unable to fully take care of themselves or protect
themselves from abuse, neglect, cruelty, exploitation or discrimination
because of a physical or mental disability or condition;
(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;
(3) Unreasonable deprivation of his basic needs for survival, such as
food and shelter; or
(4) Failure to immediately give medical treatment to an injured child
resulting in serious impairment of his growth and development or in his
permanent incapacity or death.
(c) "Circumstances which gravely threaten or endanger the survival and
normal development of children" include, but are not limited to, the
following;
(1) Being in a community where there is armed conflict or being
affected by armed conflict-related activities;
(2) Working under conditions hazardous to life, safety and normal
which unduly interfere with their normal development;
(3) Living in or fending for themselves in the streets of urban or rural
areas without the care of parents or a guardian or basic services needed
for a good quality of life;
(4) Being a member of a indigenous cultural community and/or living
under conditions of extreme poverty or in an area which is
underdeveloped and/or lacks or has inadequate access to basic services
needed for a good quality of life;
(5) Being a victim of a man-made or natural disaster or calamity; or
(6) Circumstances analogous to those above stated which endanger the
life, safety or normal development of children.
(d) "Comprehensive program against child abuse, exploitation and
discrimination" refers to the coordinated program of services and
facilities to protected children against:
(1) Child Prostitution and other sexual abuse;
(2) Child trafficking;
(3) Obscene publications and indecent shows;
(4) Other acts of abuses; and
(5) Circumstances which threaten or endanger the survival and normal
development of children.
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:

(a) Those who engage in or promote, facilitate or induce child
prostitution which include, but are not limited to, the following:
(1) Acting as a procurer of a child prostitute;
(2) Inducing a person to be a client of a child prostitute by means of
written or oral advertisements or other similar means;
(3) Taking advantage of influence or relationship to procure a child as
prostitute;
(4) Threatening or using violence towards a child to engage him as a
prostitute; or
(5) Giving monetary consideration goods or other pecuniary benefit to
a child with intent to engage such child in prostitution.
(b) Those who commit the act of sexual intercourse of lascivious
conduct with a child exploited in prostitution or subject to other sexual
abuse; Provided, That when the victims 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; and
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.
(b) Any person who shall keep or have in his company a minor, twelve
(12) years or under or who in ten (10) years or more his junior in any
Page 2 of 10
public or private place, hotel, motel, beer joint, discotheque, cabaret,
pension house, sauna or massage parlor, beach and/or other tourist resort
or similar places shall suffer the penalty of prision mayor in its
maximum period and a fine of not less than Fifty thousand pesos
(P50,000): Provided, That this provision shall not apply to any person
who is related within the fourth degree of consanguinity or affinity or
any bond recognized by law, local custom and tradition or acts in the
performance of a social, moral or legal duty.
(c) Any person who shall induce, deliver or offer a minor to any one
prohibited by this Act to keep or have in his company a minor as
provided in the preceding paragraph shall suffer the penalty of prision
mayor in its medium period and a fine of not less than Forty thousand
pesos (P40,000); Provided, however, That should the perpetrator be an
ascendant, stepparent or guardian of the minor, the penalty to be
imposed shall be prision mayor in its maximum period, a fine of not less
than Fifty thousand pesos (P50,000), and the loss of parental authority
over the minor.
(d) Any person, owner, manager or one entrusted with the operation of
any public or private place of accommodation, whether for occupancy,
food, drink or otherwise, including residential places, who allows any
person to take along with him to such place or places any minor herein
described shall be imposed a penalty of prision mayor in its medium
period and a fine of not less than Fifty thousand pesos (P50,000), and
the loss of the license to operate such a place or establishment.
(e) Any person who shall use, coerce, force or intimidate a street child
or any other child to;
(1) Beg or use begging as a means of living;
(2) Act as conduit or middlemen in drug trafficking or pushing; or
(3) Conduct any illegal activities, shall suffer the penalty of prision
correccional in its medium period to reclusion perpetua.

For purposes of this Act, the penalty for the commission of acts
punishable under Articles 248, 249, 262, paragraph 2, and 263,
paragraph 1 of Act No. 3815, as amended, the Revised Penal Code, for
the crimes of murder, homicide, other intentional mutilation, and serious
physical injuries, respectively, shall be reclusion perpetua when the
victim is under twelve (12) years of age. The penalty for the commission
of acts punishable under Article 337, 339, 340 and 341 of Act No. 3815,
as amended, the Revised Penal Code, for the crimes of qualified
seduction, acts of lasciviousness with the consent of the offended party,
corruption of minors, and white slave trade, respectively, shall be one
(1) degree higher than that imposed by law when the victim is under
twelve (12) years age.
The victim of the acts committed under this section shall be entrusted to
the care of the Department of Social Welfare and Development.
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:
(a) Those who engage in or promote, facilitate or induce child
prostitution which include, but are not limited to, the following:
(1) Acting as a procurer of a child prostitute;
(2) Inducing a person to be a client of a child prostitute by means of
written or oral advertisements or other similar means;
(3) Taking advantage of influence or relationship to procure a child as
prostitute;
(4) Threatening or using violence towards a child to engage him as a
prostitute; or
Page 3 of 10
(5) Giving monetary consideration goods or other pecuniary benefit to
a child with intent to engage such child in prostitution.
(b) Those who commit the act of sexual intercourse of lascivious
conduct with a child exploited in prostitution or subject to other sexual
abuse; Provided, That when the victims 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; and
(c) Those who derive profit or advantage therefrom, whether as manager
or owner of the establishment where the prostitution takes place, or of
the sauna, disco, bar, resort, place of entertainment or establishment
serving as a cover or which engages in prostitution in addition to the
activity for which the license has been issued to said establishment.
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.
(b) Any person who shall keep or have in his company a minor, twelve (12)
years or under or who in ten (10) years or more his junior in any public or
private place, hotel, motel, beer joint, discotheque, cabaret, pension house,
sauna or massage parlor, beach and/or other tourist resort or similar places
shall suffer the penalty of prision mayor in its maximum period and a fine of
not less than Fifty thousand pesos (P50,000): Provided, That this provision
shall not apply to any person who is related within the fourth degree of
consanguinity or affinity or any bond recognized by law, local custom and
tradition or acts in the performance of a social, moral or legal duty.
 Page 4 of 10

(c) Any person who shall induce, deliver or offer a minor to any one prohibited The victim of the acts committed under this section shall be entrusted to the
by this Act to keep or have in his company a minor as provided in the preceding care of the Department of Social Welfare and Development.
paragraph shall suffer the penalty of prision mayor in its medium period and a
fine of not less than Forty thousand pesos (P40,000); Provided, however, That
should the perpetrator be an ascendant, stepparent or guardian of the minor,
the penalty to be imposed shall be prision mayor in its maximum period, a fine
of not less than Fifty thousand pesos (P50,000), and the loss of parental
authority over the minor.
(d) Any person, owner, manager or one entrusted with the operation of any
public or private place of accommodation, whether for occupancy, food, drink
or otherwise, including residential places, who allows any person to take along
with him to such place or places any minor herein described shall be imposed
a penalty of prision mayor in its medium period and a fine of not less than Fifty
thousand pesos (P50,000), and the loss of the license to operate such a place
or establishment.
(e) Any person who shall use, coerce, force or intimidate a street child or any
other child to;
(1) Beg or use begging as a means of living;
(2) Act as conduit or middlemen in drug trafficking or pushing; or
(3) Conduct any illegal activities, shall suffer the penalty of prision
correccional in its medium period to reclusion perpetua.
For purposes of this Act, the penalty for the commission of acts punishable
under Articles 248, 249, 262, paragraph 2, and 263, paragraph 1 of Act No.
3815, as amended, the Revised Penal Code, for the crimes of murder,
homicide, other intentional mutilation, and serious physical injuries,
respectively, shall be reclusion perpetua when the victim is under twelve (12)
years of age. The penalty for the commission of acts punishable under Article
337, 339, 340 and 341 of Act No. 3815, as amended, the Revised Penal Code,
for the crimes of qualified seduction, acts of lasciviousness with the consent
of the offended party, corruption of minors, and white slave trade, respectively,
shall be one (1) degree higher than that imposed by law when the victim is
under twelve (12) years age.

PEOPLE v. DULAY
Facts:
Private complainant AAA was 12 years old when the whole incident
happened. AAA's sister introduced the appellant to AAA as someone who is
nice. Thereafter, appellant convinced AAA to accompany her at a wake at GI
San Dionisio, Parañaque City. Before going to the said wake, they went to a
casino to look for appellant's boyfriend, but since he was not there, they went
to Sto. Niño at Don Galo. However, appellant's boyfriend was also not there.
When they went to Bulungan Fish Port along the coastal road to ask for some
fish, they saw appellant's boyfriend. Afterwards, AAA, appellant and the
latter's boyfriend proceeded to the Kubuhan located at the back of the
Bulungan Fish Port. When they reached the Kubuhan, appellant suddenly
pulled AAA inside a room where a man known by the name "Speed" was
waiting. AAA saw "Speed" give money to appellant and heard "Speed" tell
appellant to look for a younger girl. Thereafter, "Speed" wielded a knife and
tied AAA's hands to the papag and raped her. AAA asked for appellant's help
when she saw the latter peeping into the room while she was being raped, but
appellant did not do so. After the rape, "Speed" and appellant told AAA not to
tell anyone what had happened or else they would get back at her.
AAA went to San Pedro, Laguna after the incident and told her sister what
happened and the latter informed their mother about it. AAA, her sister and
mother, filed a complaint at Barangay San Dionisio. Thereafter, the barangay
officials of San Dionisio referred the complaint to the police station.
The Parañaque City Police Office (Women's and Children Concern Desk)
asked the assistance of the Child Protection Unit of the Philippine General
Hospital, upon which the latter assigned the case to Dr. Merle Tan.
Consequently, with the consent of AAA and her mother, and in the presence
of a social worker of the Department of Social Welfare and Development
Page 5 of 10
(DSWD), Dr. Tan conducted the requisite interview and physical examination
on AAA. Later on, Dr. Tan issued a Medico-Legal Report stating that there
was no evident injury in the body of AAA, but medical evaluation cannot
exclude sexual abuse. During her testimony, Dr. Tan explained that such
impression or conclusion pertains to the ano-genital examination and also
stated that she found multiple abrasions on the back portion of the body of
AAA.
Thus, an Information was filed, which reads as follows:
That on or about the 3rd day of July 2005, in the City of Parañaque,
Philippines and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-
named accused, conspiring and confederating together with one alias "Speed,"
whose true name and identity and present whereabouts is still unknown, and
both of them mutually helping and aiding one another, the herein accused Dina
P. Dulay having delivered and offered for a fee complainant AAA, 12 year old
minor, to accused alias "Speed," who with lewd design and by means of force
and intimidation, did then and there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously have
carnal knowledge on said minor complainant AAA against her will and
without her consent, which act is prejudicial to the normal growth and
development of the said child.
Issue:
Whether or not the appellant is in violation of Section 5 (a) of R.A.
7610, or the Special Protection of Children Against Abuse, Exploitation and
Discrimination Act.
Ruling:
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:

(a) Those who engage in or promote, facilitate or induce child prostitution
which include, but are not limited to, the following:
(1) Acting as a procurer of a child prostitute;
(2) Inducing a person to be a client of a child prostitute by means of written or
oral advertisements or other similar means;
(3) Taking advantage of influence or relationship to procure a child as a
prostitute;
(4) Threatening or using violence towards a child to engage him as a prostitute;
or
(5) Giving monetary consideration goods or other pecuniary benefit to a child
with intent to engage such child in prostitution.
The elements of paragraph (a) are:
1. the accused engages in, promotes, facilitates or induces child prostitution;
2. the act is done through, but not limited to, the following means:
a. acting as a procurer of a child prostitute;
b. inducing a person to be a client of a child prostitute by means of written or
oral advertisements or other similar means;
c. taking advantage of influence or relationship to procure a child as a
prostitute;
d. threatening or using violence towards a child to engage him as a prostitute;
or
e. giving monetary consideration, goods or other pecuniary benefit to a child
with intent to engage such child in prostitution;
3. the child is exploited or intended to be exploited in prostitution and
4. the child, whether male or female, is below 18 years of age.
The act of apellant in convincing AAA, who was 12 years old at that
time, to go with her and thereafter, offer her for sex to a man in exchange for
money makes her liable under the above-mentioned law. The purpose of the
Page 6 of 10
law is to provide special protection to children from all forms of abuse, neglect,
cruelty, exploitation and discrimination, and other conditions prejudicial to
their development. A child exploited in prostitution may seem to "consent" to
what is being done to her or him and may appear not to complain.
However, we have held that a child who is "a person below eighteen
years of age or those unable to fully take care of themselves or protect
themselves from abuse, neglect, cruelty, exploitation or discrimination
because of their age or mental disability or condition" is incapable of giving
rational consent to any lascivious act or sexual intercourse.
NAVARRETE v. PEOPLE
Facts:
BBB, who was at that time five years old, and petitioner were
neighbors, their houses being adjacent to each other.On October 30, 1995, at
around past 9:00 in the evening, BBB went to petitioner’s house to watch
television, which was something she often did.Only petitioner and BBB were
there that night. BBB testified that it was on this occasion that petitioner
sexually abused her, "placed his penis [in her] vagina" twice, poked her vagina
with a "stick with cotton" and boxed her on the right side of her eye.Then,
petitioner brought her to the comfort room and pointed a knife to her
throat.Afterwards, she and petitioner watched a pornographic movie together.
AAA, BBB’s mother, testified that around 10:30 p.m., BBB went out of
petitioner’s house. While trembling and crying, BBB embraced her mother and
told her that "Kuya Ferdie sinundot ako."
The next day, on October 31, 1995, Dr. Noel Minay, medico-legal officer of
the National Bureau of Investigation, examined BBB. He found that her
maidenhead was short, intact and had a narrow opening at 0.3 cm. in diameter.
He concluded that these findings precluded complete penetration by an
average-sized Filipino male organ in full erection.
Testifying in his own behalf, petitioner denied the accusation against him and
claimed that AAA merely concocted the charge against him. He alleged that
she had ill feelings against his mother who she thought had something to do

with the separation of her (AAA’s) son from the Philippine Postal Corporation.
He also posited that she resented the Navarretes’ refusal to allow her to place
a "jumper" on their electrical connection.
In a decision dated January 16, 1997, the RTC absolved petitioner of statutory
rape as there was no clear and positive proof of the entry of petitioner’s penis
into the labia of the victim’s vagina.
Issue:
Whether or not the accused committed Acts of Lasciviousness in relation to
Section 5(b), Article III of RA 7610.
Ruling:
In pursuant to Section 5 (b) of RA 7610, before an accused can be convicted
of child abuse through lascivious conduct on a minor below 12 years of age,
the requisites for acts of lasciviousness under Article 336 of the RPC must be
met in addition to the requisites for sexual abuse under Section 5 of RA 7610.2
The elements of the crime of acts of lasciviousness under Article 336 of the
RPC are the following:
(1) The offender commits any act of lasciviousness or lewdness;
(2) It is done under any of the following circumstances:
a. By using force or intimidation; or
b. When the offended party is deprived of reason or otherwise unconscious; or
c. When the offended party is under 12 years of age; and
(3) The offended party is another person of either sex. (emphasis supplied)
The general rule is that the factual findings of the trial court deserve a high
degree of respect and will not be disturbed on appeal in the absence of any
clear showing that it overlooked, misapprehended or misapplied some facts or
circumstances of weight and substance which can alter the result of the case
The prosecution was able to prove beyond reasonable doubt that petitioner
committed acts of sexual abuse against BBB. The RTC found BBB’s
testimony to be clear, candid, and straightforward. Her testimony was worthy
Page 7 of 10
of belief since she was young and had no ill-motive to falsely testify and
impute a serious crime against the accused.
It should be borne in mind that even the most candid witness oftentimes makes
mistakes and confused statements. Instead of eroding the effectiveness of the
evidence, such imperfections and discrepancies in the testimony can in fact be
considered as signs of veracity. Aside from the fact that it is very difficult to
give a mechanical and accurate account of a traumatic and horrifying
experience, the victim here was a mere five-year old girl when she was put on
the witness stand. We should not expect a five-year old child to explain with
exact precision the nature of the acts done to her, given her naiveté and still
undeveloped vocabulary and command of language. Despite this limitation,
however, the victim never wavered in her claim that petitioner molested her.
PEOPLE v. CA
Facts:
On or about 2:00 p.m. of January 27, 1997 in Taguig, Metro Manila
and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the accused, with lewd
designs, did then and there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously have sexual
intercourse with and commit lewd and lascivious acts upon the person of
[AAA], a minor, and fourteen (14) years of age.
Respondent was also charged for acts of lasciviousness before the RTC of
Taguig, docketed as Criminal Case No. 116350, of which the same then 14-
year old AAA was alleged to be the victim. The case was transferred to the
Pasig City RTC and consolidated with Criminal Case Nos. 112571-72. The
three cases were jointly tried.
After trial, Branch 158 of the Pasig City RTC, by Decision of January 15,
2002, acquitted respondent in Criminal Case No. 116350 (for acts of
lasciviousness).It, however, convicted respondent of violation of Section 10
(a) of Republic Act (R.A.) No. 7610 in Criminal Case Nos. 112571-72 in this
wise:
The accused, Olayon admitted his sexual liaisons with [AAA]. His defenses
are: 1) [AAA] is his sweetheart and 2) whatever happened to them in terms of

these sexual liaisons, occurred with the consent of [AAA]. Although the
testimony of [AAA] denies she consented to the sexual liaisons, the evidence
did not support it.
The events that occurred on January 27, 1997 at the house of one Duke
Espiritu show that [AAA] went with Olayon to that place voluntarily. First,
she was fetched from a tricycle stand and it took them another ride to go to the
house of Espiritu. If indeed she was forced to board the tricycle, she could have
resisted and shouted for help considering that there were normally people
around in a tricycle stand, waiting for rides. If she indeed resisted and showed
any manifestation in this regard, people could have easily helped her in
resisting whatever it was Olayon wanted. Second, at the house of Espiritu she
could have easily shouted for help since it was located near a road and a
pathway.
Issue:
Whether or not Republic Act No. 761 covers only a situation in which
a child is abused for profit, but also one in which a child, through coercion or
intimidation, engages in any lascivious conduct
Ruling:
As Section 10 refers to acts of child abuse prejudicial to the childs
development other than child prostitution and other sexual abuse under
Section 5, attempt to commit child prostitution,[child trafficking, attempt to
commit child trafficking, and obscene publications and indecent shows, the
Court of Appeals did not commit grave abuse of discretion in holding that
sexual abuse [as defined under Section 5] is a completely distinct and separate
offense from child abuse [as defined under Section 10].
Consensual sexual 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 R.A. No.
7610. For Section 5(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.
Section 2(g) of the Rules and Regulations on the Reporting and Investigation
of Child Abuse Cases, promulgated to implement R.A. No. 7610, defines
sexual abuse as including the employment, use, persuasion, inducement,
Page 8 of 10
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. (Underscoring supplied)
For consensual sexual intercourse or lascivious conduct with a minor, who is
not exploited in prostitution, to thus fall within the purview of Section 5(b) of
R.A. No. 7610, persuasion, inducement, enticement or coercion of the
child must be present.
It must be noted that [Republic Act No. 7610] 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 any lascivious conduct.
PEOPLE v. ABAY
Facts:
AAA testified that appellant, her mothers live-in partner, had been
sexually abusing her since she was seven years old. Whenever her mother was
working or was asleep in the evening, appellant would threaten her with a
bladed instrument[2] and force her to undress and engage in sexual intercourse
with him.
BBB corroborated AAAs testimony. She testified that she knew about
appellants dastardly acts. However, because he would beat her up and accuse
AAA of lying whenever she confronted him, she kept her silence. Thus, when
she caught appellant in the act of molesting her daughter on December 25,
1999, she immediately proceeded to the police station and reported the
incident.
According to Dr. Guerrero-Manalo, AAA confided to her that appellant had
been sexually abusing her for six years. This was confirmed by AAAs physical
examination indicating prior and recent penetration injuries.
The defense, on the other hand, asserted the incredibility of the charge against
appellant. Appellants sister, Nenita Abay, and appellants daughter, Rizza,
testified that if appellant had really been sexually abusing AAA, the family
would have noticed. The rooms of their house were divided only by -inch thick
plywood walls that did not even reach the ceiling. Thus, they should have

heard AAAs cries. Moreover, Nenita and Rizza claimed that they often caught
AAA and her boyfriend in intimate situations.
Issue:
Whether or not the age of the victim is a factor to determine the crime to
convict the accused.
Ruling:
Under Section 5(b), Article III of RA 7610 in relation to RA 8353,if
the victim of sexual abuse is below 12 years of age, the offender should not be
prosecuted for sexual abuse but for statutory rape under Article 266-A(1)(d)
of the Revised Penal Code and penalized with reclusion perpetua [On the other
hand, if the victim is 12 years or older, the offender should be charged with
either sexual abuse under Section 5(b) of RA 7610 or rape under Article 266-
A (except paragraph 1[d]) of the Revised Penal Code. 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. Likewise, rape cannot be complexed
with a violation of Section 5(b) of RA 7610. Under Section 48 of the Revised
Penal Code (on complex crimes), a felony under the Revised Penal Code (such
as rape) cannot be complexed with an offense penalized by a special law.
In this case, the victim was more than 12 years old when the crime was
committed against her. The Information against appellant stated that AAA was
13 years old at the time of the incident. Therefore, appellant may be prosecuted
either for violation of Section 5(b) of RA 7610 or rape under Article 266-A
(except paragraph 1[d]) of the Revised Penal Code. While the Information may
have alleged the elements of both crimes, the prosecutions evidence only
established that appellant sexually violated the person of AAA through force
and intimidation[by threatening her with a bladed instrument and forcing her
to submit to his bestial designs. Thus, rape was established.
ARANETA v. PEOPLE
Facts:
Page 9 of 10
AAA was 17 years old, having been born on 28 March 1981,
in Batohon Daco, Dauin, Negros Oriental.Because she was then studying
at Dauin Municipal High School located at Poblacion, District III, Dauin,
AAA left her birthplace to live near her school. She stayed at the house of a
certain DDD as a boarder.
At around 10:00 oclock in the morning of 10 April 1998, while AAA and her
two younger sisters, BBB and EEE were sitting on a bench at the waiting shed
located near her boarding house, petitioner approached her. Petitioner, who
had been incessantly courting AAA from the time she was still 13 years old,
again expressed his feelings for her and asked her to accept his love and even
insisted that she must accept him because he had a job. She did not like what
she heard from petitioner and tried to hit him with a broom but the latter was
able to dodge the strike. She and her two sisters dashed to the boarding house
which was five meters away and went inside the room. When they were about
to close the door, the petitioner, who was following them, forced himself
inside. The three tried to bar petitioner from entering the room by pushing the
door to his direction. Their efforts, however, proved futile as petitioner was
able to enter. There petitioner embraced AAA, who struggled to extricate
herself from his hold. AAA then shouted for help. Meanwhile, petitioner
continued hugging her and tried to threaten her with these
words: Ug dili ko nimo sugton, patyon tike. Akong ipakita nimo unsa ko ka b
uang (If you will not accept my love I will kill you. I will show you how bad I
can be). BBB, tried to pull petitioner away from her sister AAA, but to no
avail.Andrew Tubilag, who was also residing in the same house, arrived and
pulled petitioner away from AAA. AAA closed the door of the room and there
she cried. She then went to the police station to report the incident.
The petitioner, on the other hand, denied the charge. He alone took the
stand. Petitioner narrated that he met AAA and her younger sisters at the
waiting shed, but he denied having embraced or kissed the victim. He said he
only spoke to her and told her that he loved her. Although he admitted that he
followed AAA and her sisters when they went to the boarding house, it was
because AAA beckoned him to follow her. When he was inside the room, he
again told her of his feelings but he was merely told by her to wait until she

finished her studies. He further said that he had been courting and visiting
AAA since she was 12 or 13 years old.
Issue:
Whether or not the accused is in violation of (a) of Section 10 of R.A. 7610.
Ruling:
As gleaned from the foregoing, the provision punishes not only those
enumerated under Article 59 of Presidential Decree No. 603, but also four
distinct acts, i.e., (a) child abuse, (b) child cruelty, (c) child exploitation and
(d) being responsible for conditions prejudicial to the childs development. The
Rules and Regulations of the questioned statute distinctly and separately
defined child abuse, cruelty and exploitation just to show that these three acts
are different from one another and from the act prejudicial to the childs
development. Contrary to petitioners assertion, an accused can be prosecuted
and be convicted under Section 10(a), Article VI of Republic Act No. 7610 if
he commits any of the four acts therein. The prosecution need not prove that
the acts of child abuse, child cruelty and child exploitation have resulted in the
prejudice of the child because an act prejudicial to the development of the child
is different from the former acts.
The use of or in Section 10(a) of Republic Act No. 7610 before the phrase be
responsible for other conditions prejudicial to the childs
development supposes that there are four punishable acts therein. First, the act
of child abuse; second, child cruelty; third, child exploitation; and fourth, being
responsible for conditions prejudicial to the childs development. The fourth
penalized act cannot be interpreted, as petitioner suggests, as a qualifying
condition for the three other acts, because an analysis of the entire context of
the questioned provision does not warrant such construal.
The subject statute defines children as persons below eighteen (18) years of
age; or those over that age but are unable to fully take care of themselves or
protect themselves from abuse, neglect, cruelty, exploitation or discrimination
Page 10 of 10
because of a physical or mental disability or condition. It is undisputed that the
victim, under said law, was still a child during the incident.
Subsection (b), Section 3, Article I of Republic Act No. 7610, states:
(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;
(3) Unreasonable deprivation of his basic needs for survival, such as
food and shelter;
(4) Failure to immediately give medical treatment to an injured child
resulting in serious impairment of his growth and development or in his
permanent incapacity or death.
The evidence of the prosecution proved that petitioner, despite the victims
protestation, relentlessly followed the latter from the waiting shed to her
boarding house and even to the room where she stayed. He forcibly embraced
her and threatened to kill her if she would not accept his love for her. Indeed,
such devious act must have shattered her self-esteem and womanhood and
virtually debased, degraded or demeaned her intrinsic worth and dignity. As a
young and helpless lass at that time, being away from her parents, the victim
must have felt desecrated and sexually transgressed, especially considering the
fact that the incident took place before the very eyes of her two younger,
innocent sisters. Petitioner who was old enough to be the victims grandfather,
did not only traumatize and gravely threaten the normal development of such
innocent girl; he was also betraying the trust that young girls place in the adult
members of the community who are expected to guide and nurture the well-
being of these fragile members of the society. Undoubtedly, such insensible
act of petitioner constitutes child abuse.