REPUBLIC ACT 7610

SPECIAL PROTECTION OF CHILDREN AGAINST ABUSE,

EXPLOITATION AND DISCRIMINATION ACT

In Partial Fulfillment of the

Requirements for the Course
SPECIAL PENAL LAWS

Submitted by:
JARINE L. DAMIT-OG
December 2016

REPUBLIC ACT 7610

Special Protection of Children against Abuse, Exploitation and
Discrimination Act
A. PUNISHABLE ACTS
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
(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 6. Attempt To Commit Child Prostitution. There is an attempt
to commit child prostitution under Section 5, paragraph (a) hereof when any
person who, not being a relative of a child, is found alone with the said child
inside the room or cubicle of a house, an inn, hotel, motel, pension house,
apartelle or other similar establishments, vessel, vehicle or any other hidden or
secluded area under circumstances which would lead a reasonable person to
believe that the child is about to be exploited in prostitution and other sexual
abuse.
There is also an attempt to commit child prostitution, under paragraph (b) of
Section 5 hereof when any person is receiving services from a child in a sauna
parlor or bath, massage clinic, health club and other similar establishments. A
penalty lower by two (2) degrees than that prescribed for the consummated

felony under Section 5 hereof shall be imposed upon the principals of the attempt
to commit the crime of child prostitution under this Act, or, in the proper case,
under the Revised Penal Code.
Section 7. Child Trafficking. Any person who shall engage in trading and
dealing with children including, but not limited to, the act of buying and selling of
a child for money, or for any other consideration, or barter, shall suffer the
penalty of reclusion temporal to reclusion perpetua. The penalty shall be imposed
in its maximum period when the victim is under twelve (12) years of age.
Section 8. Attempt to Commit Child Trafficking. There is an attempt to
commit child trafficking under Section 7 of this Act:
(a) When a child travels alone to a foreign country without valid reason
therefor and without clearance issued by the Department of Social Welfare
and Development or written permit or justification from the child's
parents or legal guardian;
(c) When a person, agency, establishment or child-caring institution
recruits women or couples to bear children for the purpose of child
trafficking; or
(d) When a doctor, hospital or clinic official or employee, nurse, midwife,
local civil registrar or any other person simulates birth for the purpose of
child trafficking; or
(e) When a person engages in the act of finding children among lowincome families, hospitals, clinics, nurseries, day-care centers, or other
child-during institutions who can be offered for the purpose of child
trafficking.
A penalty lower two (2) degrees than that prescribed for the consummated felony
under Section 7 hereof shall be imposed upon the principals of the attempt to
commit child trafficking under this Act.
Section 9. Obscene Publications and Indecent Shows. Any person who
shall hire, employ, use, persuade, induce or coerce a child to perform in obscene
exhibitions and indecent shows, whether live or in video, or model in obscene
publications or pornographic materials or to sell or distribute the said materials
shall suffer the penalty of prision mayor in its medium period.
If the child used as a performer, subject or seller/distributor is below twelve (12)
years of age, the penalty shall be imposed in its maximum period.
Any ascendant, guardian, or person entrusted in any capacity with the care of a
child who shall cause and/or allow such child to be employed or to participate in
an obscene play, scene, act, movie or show or in any other acts covered by this
section shall suffer the penalty of prision mayor in its medium period.
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.
(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.
A.1 RELATED FELONIES (RPC- ACT No. 3815)
a. 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 in the preceding
article, shall be punished by prision correccional.
b. Art. 335- Rape
Rape is committed by having carnal knowledge of a woman under any of
the following circumstances:

1. By using force or intimidation;

2. When the woman is deprived of reason or otherwise unconscious; and
3. When the woman is under twelve years of age, even though neither of
the circumstances mentioned in the two next preceding paragraphs shall
be present.
The crime of rape shall be punished by reclusion perpetua.
Whenever the crime of rape is committed with the use of a deadly weapon
or by two or more persons, the penalty shall be reclusion perpetua to
death.
When by reason or on the occasion of the rape, the victim has become
insane, the penalty shall be death.
When rape is attempted or frustrated and a homicide is committed by
reason or on the occasion thereof, the penalty shall be likewise death.
When by reason or on the occasion of the rape, a homicide is committed,
the penalty shall be death. (As amended by R.A. 2632, approved June 18,
1960, and R.A. 4111, approved June 20, 1964).
c. Art. 248- Murder
Any person who, not falling within the provisions of Article 246 shall kill
another, shall be guilty of murder and shall be punished by reclusion
temporal in its maximum period to death, if committed with any of the
following attendant circumstances:
1. With treachery, taking advantage of superior strength, with the aid of
armed men, or employing means to weaken the defense or of means or
persons to insure or afford impunity.
2. In consideration of a price, reward, or promise.
3. By means of inundation, fire, poison, explosion, shipwreck, stranding of
a vessel, derailment or assault upon a street car or locomotive, fall of an
airship, by means of motor vehicles, or with the use of any other means
involving great waste and ruin.
4. On occasion of any of the calamities enumerated in the preceding
paragraph, or of an earthquake, eruption of a volcano, destructive cyclone,
epidemic or other public calamity.
5. With evident premeditation.
6. With cruelty, by deliberately and inhumanly augmenting the suffering of
the victim, or outraging or scoffing at his person or corpse.
d. Art. 249- Homicide
Any person who, not falling within the provisions of Article 246, shall kill
another without the attendance of any of the circumstances enumerated in
the next preceding article, shall be deemed guilty of homicide and be
punished by reclusion temporal.
e. Art. 262- Other Intentional Mutilation

The penalty of reclusion temporal to reclusion perpetua shall be imposed

upon any person who shall intentionally mutilate another by depriving
him, either totally or partially, or some essential organ of reproduction.
Any other intentional mutilation shall be punished by prision mayor in its
medium and maximum periods.
f. Art. 263- Serious Physical Injuries
Any person who shall wound, beat, or assault another, shall be guilty of the
crime of serious physical injuries and shall suffer:
1. The penalty of prision mayor, if in consequence of the physical injuries
inflicted, the injured person shall become insane, imbecile, impotent, or
blind;
2. The penalty of prision correccional in its medium and maximum
periods, if in consequence of the physical injuries inflicted, the person
injured shall have lost the use of speech or the power to hear or to smell, or
shall have lost an eye, a hand, a foot, an arm, or a leg or shall have lost the
use of any such member, or shall have become incapacitated for the work
in which he was therefor habitually engaged;
3. The penalty of prision correccional in its minimum and medium
periods, if in consequence of the physical injuries inflicted, the person
injured shall have become deformed, or shall have lost any other part of
his body, or shall have lost the use thereof, or shall have been ill or
incapacitated for the performance of the work in which he as habitually
engaged for a period of more than ninety days;
4. The penalty of arresto mayor in its maximum period to prision
correccional in its minimum period, if the physical injuries inflicted shall
have caused the illness or incapacity for labor of the injured person for
more than thirty days.
If the offense shall have been committed against any of the persons
enumerated in Article 246, or with attendance of any of the circumstances
mentioned in Article 248, the case covered by subdivision number 1 of this
Article shall be punished by reclusion temporal in its medium and
maximum periods; the case covered by subdivision number 2 by prision
correccional in its maximum period to prision mayor in its minimum
period; the case covered by subdivision number 3 by prision correccional
in its medium and maximum periods; and the case covered by subdivision
number 4 by prision correccional in its minimum and medium periods.
The provisions of the preceding paragraph shall not be applicable to a
parent who shall inflict physical injuries upon his child by excessive
chastisement.
g. Art. 337- Qualified Seduction
The seduction of a virgin over twelve years and under eighteen years of
age, committed by any person in public authority, priest, home-servant,
domestic, guardian, teacher, or any person who, in any capacity, shall be
entrusted with the education or custody of the woman seduced, shall be
punished by prision correccional in its minimum and medium periods.

The penalty next higher in degree shall be imposed upon any person who
shall seduce his sister or descendant, whether or not she be a virgin or over
eighteen years of age.
Under the provisions of this Chapter, seduction is committed when the
offender has carnal knowledge of any of the persons and under the
circumstances described herein.
h. Art. 339- Acts of Lasciviousness with the consent of offended
party
The penalty of arresto mayor shall be imposed to punish any other acts of
lasciviousness committed by the same persons and the same
circumstances as those provided in Articles 337 and 338.
i. Art. 340- Corruption of Minors
Any person who shall promote or facilitate the prostitution or corruption
of persons underage to satisfy the lust of another, shall be punished by
prision mayor, and if the culprit is a pubic officer or employee, including
those in government-owned or controlled corporations, he shall also suffer
the penalty of temporary absolute disqualification. (As amended by Batas
Pambansa Blg. 92).
j. Art. 341- White Slavery
The penalty of prision mayor in its medium and maximum period shall be
imposed upon any person who, in any manner, or under any pretext, shall
engage in the business or shall profit by prostitution or shall enlist the
services of any other for the purpose of prostitution (As amended by Batas
Pambansa Blg. 186.)
B. DECIDED CASES
I.

G.R. No. 198732

CHRISTIAN CABALLO VS PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES
Facts of the Case:
Appellant was charged on March 16, 1999 with the crime of
violation of Section 10(a) Article VI of RA 7610, which was later
amended on May 28, 1999, to include statements pertaining to the
delivery of private complainant AAAs baby. The Amended
Information reads:
That undersigned Second Assistant City Prosecutor hereby accuses
Christian Caballo of the crime of Violation of Section 10 (a) of
Republic Act No. 7610, committed as follows:
That in or about the last week of March 1998, and on different dates
subsequent thereto, until June 1998, in the City of Surigao,
Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the
above-named accused, a 23 year old man, in utter disregard of the
prohibition of the provisions of Republic Act No. 7610 and taking
advantage of the innocence and lack of worldly experience of AAA
who was only 17 years old at that time, having been born on
November 3, 1980, did then and there willfully, unlawfully and
feloniously commit sexual abuse upon said AAA, by persuading and
inducing the latter to have sexual intercourse with him, which
ultimately resulted to her untimely pregnancy and delivery of a

baby on March 8, 1999, a condition prejudicial to her development,

to the damage and prejudice of AAA in such amount as may be
allowed by law.
The RTCs Ruling
In a Decision dated April 1, 2003, the RTC found Caballo guilty
beyond reasonable doubt of violation of Section 10(a), Article VI of
RA 7610, in relation to Section 2 of the Rules on Child Abuse Cases.
Accordingly, it sentenced Caballo to suffer imprisonment for an
indeterminate period ranging from prision correccional, in its
maximum period of four (4) years, two (2) months and one (1) day,
as minimum, to prision mayor in its minimum period of six (6)
years, eight (8) months and one (1) day, as maximum. It also
ordered Caballo to pay AAA moral damages in the amount of P50,
000.00. Aggrieved, Caballo elevated the case to the CA.
The CAs Ruling
In a Decision dated January 28, 2011,15 the CA dismissed the
appeal and affirmed with modification the RTCs ruling, finding
Caballo guilty of violating Section 5(b), Article III of RA 7610.
It ruled that while the Amended Information denominated the
crime charged as violation of Section 10(a), Article VI of RA 7610,
the statements in its body actually support a charge of violation of
Section 5(b), Article III of RA 7610.16
On the merits of the case, it found that the evidence adduced by the
prosecution clearly showed that Caballo persuaded, induced and
enticed AAA, then a minor, to have carnal knowledge with him.
Towards this end, Caballo repeatedly assured AAA of his love and
even went on to promise marriage to her. He also assured AAA that
she would not get pregnant because he would be using the
"withdrawal method." Thus, it was upon these repeated coaxing and
assuring words that AAA succumbed to Caballos evil desires which
deflowered and got her pregnant. On this score, it observed that
consent is immaterial in child abuse cases involving sexual
intercourse and lascivious conduct and therefore, the sweetheart
defense remains unacceptable. It also found basis to sustain the
award of moral damages.
Caballo filed a motion for reconsideration which was, however,
denied on September 26, 2011.19
Hence, the instant petition.
The Issue:
The core of the present controversy revolves around the
interpretation of the phrase "due to the coercion or influence of any
adult" which would thereby classify the victim as a "child exploited
in prostitution and other sexual abuse" as found in Section 5,
Article III of RA 7610. Consequently, the interpretation which the
Court accords herein would determine whether or not the CA erred
in finding Caballo guilty of violating paragraph (b) of the same
proviso.
In his petition, Caballo essentially argues that his promise to marry
or his use of the "withdrawal method" should not be considered as
"persuasion" or "inducement" sufficient to convict him for the
aforementioned offense, asserting that these should be coupled with
some form of coercion or intimidation to constitute child abuse. He

further alleges that he and AAA were sweethearts which thus, made
the sexual intercourse consensual.
In its Comment, respondent advances the argument that there was
"sexual abuse" within the purview of RA 7610 as well as the Rules
on Child Abuse Cases since it was only upon Caballos repeated
assurances and persuasion that AAA gave in to his worldly desires.
Likewise, it points out that the sweetheart theory, as relied on by
Caballo, deserves scant consideration in view of the Courts ruling
in Malto v. People (Malto).
The Courts Ruling
The petition has no merit.
II.

G.R. No. 192760

JOJIT GARINGARAO VS LEONARDO-DE
(PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES)

CASTRO

Facts of the Case:

On 20 January 2004, the City Prosecutor filed an
Information against Garingarao for acts of lasciviousness in relation
to RA 7610, as follows:
That on or about the 29th day of October 2003, at Virgen
Milagrosa University Hospital, San Carlos City, Pangasinan, and
within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named
accused, with lewd designs, did then and there, willfully, unlawfully
and feloniously touched the breast of AAA, 16 years of age, touched
her genitalia, and inserted his finger into her vagina, to the damage
and prejudice of said AAA who suffered psychological and
emotional disturbance, anxiety, sleeplessness and humiliation.
The case was later on raised to the Court of Appeals. The
Court of Appeals modified the penalty imposed by the trial court.
The Court of Appeals ruled that the duration of reclusion temporal
in its maximum period should be 17 years, 4 months and 1 day to 20
years and not 14 years and 8 months as imposed by the trial court.
The Court of Appeals also raised the award of moral damages and
fine, which was deemed as civil indemnity, to conform with recent
jurisprudence.
Issue:
The only issue in this case is whether the Court of Appeals
committed a reversible error in affirming with modifications the
trial courts decision.
Ruling:
The Court has ruled that in case of acts of lasciviousness, the
lone testimony of the offended party, if credible, is sufficient to
establish the guilt of the accused. In this case, both the trial court
and the Court of Appeals found the testimony of AAA credible over
Garingaraos defense of denial and alibi. It is a settled rule that
denial is a weak defense as against the positive identification by the
victim. Both denial and alibi are inherently weak defenses and
constitute self-serving negative evidence which cannot be accorded
greater evidentiary weight than the positive declaration by a
credible witness. Garingaraos defense of denial and alibi must fail
over the positive and straightforward testimony of AAA on the
incident. Further, like the trial court and the Court of Appeals, we

find incredible Garingaraos defense that the case was an offshoot of

a heated argument he had with AAAs father over the manner
Garingarao was giving AAAs medications. It is hard to believe that
AAAs parents would expose her to a public trial if the charges were
not true. In addition, the prosecution was able to establish that,
contrary to Garingaraos allegation, both BBB and CCC were not in
AAAs room at the time of the incident.
III.

G.R. No. 179090

LEONILO SANCHEZ VS PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES
Facts of the Case:
Appellant was charged with the crime of Other Acts of Child
Abuse in an Information dated August 29, 2001 which reads:
The undersigned, Second Assistant Provincial Prosecutor, hereby
accuses Leonilo Sanchez alias Nilo of Lajog, Clarin, Bohol of the
crime of Other Acts of Child Abuse, committed as follows:
That on or about the 2nd day of September, 2000 in the
municipality of Clarin, province of Bohol, Philippines, and within
the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, acting as a Family Court,
the above-named accused, with intent to abuse, exploit and/or to
inflict other conditions prejudicial to the child's development, did
then and there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously abuse physically
one [VVV], a sixteen (16) year old minor, by hitting her thrice in the
upper part of her legs, and which acts are prejudicial to the childvictim's development which acts are not covered by the Revised
Penal Code, as amended, but the same are covered by Art. 59, par. 8
of P.D. No. 603 as amended; to the damage and prejudice of the
offended party in the amount to be proved during the trial.
The appellant argues that the injuries inflicted by him were minor
in nature that it is not prejudicial to the child-victims development
and therefore P.D. No. 603 is not applicable and he should be
charged under the Revised Penal Code for slight physical injuries.
Issue:
Whether or not P.D. 603 as amended is applicable to the case at
hand.
Ruling:
In this case, the applicable laws are Article 59 of P.D. No. 603 and
Section 10(a) of R.A. No. 7610. Section 10(a) of R.A. No. 7610
provides:
SECTION 10. Other Acts of Neglect, Abuse, Cruelty or
Exploitation and Other Conditions Prejudicial to the
Child's Development.
(a)
Any person who shall commit any other acts of child abuse,
cruelty or exploitation or be responsible for other conditions
prejudicial to the child's development including those covered by
Article 59 of Presidential Decree No. 603, as amended, but not
covered by the Revised Penal Code, as amended, shall suffer the
penalty of prision mayor in its minimum period.
As gleaned from the foregoing, the provision punishes not only
those enumerated under Article 59 of Presidential Decree No. 603,
but also four distinct acts, i.e., (a) child abuse, (b) child cruelty, (c)
child exploitation and (d) being responsible for conditions

prejudicial to the childs development. The Rules and Regulations

of the questioned statute distinctly and separately defined child
abuse, cruelty and exploitation just to show that these three acts are
different from one another and from the act prejudicial to the
childs development. Contrary to petitioners assertion, an accused
can be prosecuted and be convicted under Section 10(a), Article VI
of Republic Act No. 7610 if he commits any of the four acts therein.
The prosecution need not prove that the acts of child abuse, child
cruelty and child exploitation have resulted in the prejudice of the
child because an act prejudicial to the development of the child is
different from the former acts.
Moreover, it is a rule in statutory construction that the word or is
a disjunctive term signifying dissociation and independence of one
thing from other things enumerated. It should, as a rule, be
construed in the sense which it ordinarily implies. Hence, the use of
or in Section 10(a) of Republic Act No. 7610 before the phrase be
responsible for other conditions prejudicial to the childs
development supposes that there are four punishable acts therein.
First, the act of child abuse; second, child cruelty; third, child
exploitation; and fourth, being responsible for conditions
prejudicial to the childs development. The fourth penalized act
cannot be interpreted, as petitioner suggests, as a qualifying
condition for the three other acts, because an analysis of the entire
context of the questioned provision does not warrant such
construal.
Appellant contends that, after proof, the act should not be
considered as child abuse but merely as slight physical injuries
defined and punishable under Article 266 of the Revised Penal
Code. Appellant conveniently forgets that when the incident
happened, VVV was a child entitled to the protection extended by
R.A. No. 7610, as mandated by the Constitution. As defined in the
law, child abuse includes physical abuse of the child, whether the
same is habitual or not. The act of appellant falls squarely within
this definition. We, therefore, cannot accept appellant's contention.
Acts committed contrary to the provisions of Section 10(a) in
relation to Sections 3(a) and 3(b) No. 1 of Rep. Act No. 7610 and
Sec. 59(8) of PD 603, amended.
IV.

G.R. No. 173988

FELINA ROSALDES VS PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES
Facts of the Case:
On February 13, 1996, seven year old Michael Ryan Gonzales, then
a Grade 1 pupil at Pughanan Elementary School located in the
Municipality of Lambunao, Iloilo, was hurriedly entering his
classroom when he accidentally bumped the knee of his teacher,
petitioner Felina Rosaldes, who was then asleep on a bamboo sofa.
Roused from sleep, petitioner asked Michael Ryan to apologize to
her. When Michael did not obey but instead proceeded to his seat,
petitioner went to Michael and pinched him on his thigh. Then, she
held him up by his armpits and pushed him to the floor. As he fell,
Michael Ryans 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. Michael Ryan cried.
After the incident, petitioner proceeded to teach her class. During
lunch break, Michael Ryan, accompanied by two of his classmates,

Louella Loredo and Jonalyn Gonzales, went home crying and told
his mother about the incident. His mother and his Aunt Evangeline
Gonzales reported the incident to their Barangay Captain, Gonzalo
Larroza who advised them to have Michael Ryan examined by a
doctor. Michael Ryans aunt and Barangay Councilman Ernesto
Ligante brought him to the Dr. Ricardo Y. Ladrido Hospital where
he was examined by Dr. Teresita Castigador. They, likewise,
reported the incident to the Police Station.
On June 26, 2003, the RTC rendered judgment convicting the
petitioner of child abuse disposing as follows:
WHEREFORE, finding the accused guilty beyond reasonable doubt
of Violation of Section 10 (a), Article VI of R.A. 7610, the Court
sentences her to an indeterminate prison term ranging from four
(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.
On appeal, the CA affirmed the conviction of the petitioner through
its assailed decision promulgated on May 11, 2005,7 with a
modification of the penalty, viz: WHEREFORE, premises
considered, judgment is hereby rendered by us DISMISSING the
appeal filed in this case and AFFIRMING the decision rendered on
June 26, 2003 by the court a quo in Criminal Case No. 46893 with
the MODIFICATION that the accused-appellant is sentenced to
suffer the indeterminate penalty of four (4) years, two (2) months
and one (1) day of prision correccional, as the minimum of it, to ten
(10) years and one (1) day of prision mayor, as the maximum
thereof.
Issue:
Whether the petitioner should be convicted of violation of Section
10(a) of RA 7610.
Ruling:
The appeal lacks merit.
First of all, the State correctly contends that the petitioner could
raise only questions of law in her present recourse. Under Rule 45
of the Rules of Court, the appeal is limited to questions of law. The
immediate implication of the limitation is to have the findings of
fact by the CA, which affirmed the findings of fact by the trial court,
conclude the Court by virtue of its not being a trier of fact. As such,
the Court cannot analyze or weigh the evidence all over again.
Secondly, the petitioner contends that she did not deliberately
inflict the physical injuries suffered by Michael Ryan to maltreat or
malign him in a manner that would debase, demean or degrade his
dignity. She characterizes her maltreatment as an act 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.
The contention of the petitioner is utterly bereft of merit.

Although the petitioner, as a school teacher, could duly discipline

Michael Ryan as her pupil, her infliction of the physical injuries on
him was unnecessary, violent and excessive. The boy even fainted
from the violence suffered at her hands. 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 punishment by a school administrator, teacher or
individual engaged in child care exercising special parental
authority (i.e., in loco parentis), viz:
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.
In the crime charged against the petitioner, therefore, the
maltreatment may consist of an act by deeds or by words that
debases, degrades or demeans the intrinsic worth and dignity of a
child as a human being. The act need not be habitual. The CA
concluded that the petitioner "went overboard in disciplining
Michael Ryan, a helpless and weak 7-year old boy, when she
pinched hard Michael Ryan on the left thigh and when she held him
in the armpits and threw him on the floor[; and as] the boy fell
down, his body hit the desk causing him to lose consciousness [but
instead] of feeling a sense of remorse, the accused-appellant further
held the boy up by his ears and pushed him down on the floor."
WHEREFORE, the Court AFFIRMS the decision promulgated on
May 11, 2005, subject to the MODIFICATIONS that: (a) the
petitioner shall suffer the indeterminate penalty of four (4) years,
nine (9) months and eleven (11) days of prision correccional, as
minimum, to seven (7) years, four (4) months and one (1) day of pr
is ion mayor, as the maximum; (b) the petitioner shall pay to
Michael Ryan Gonzales P20,000.00 as moral damages,
P20,000.00 as exemplary damages, and P20,000.00 as temperate
damages, plus interest at the rate of 6% per annum on each item of
the civil liability reckoned from the finality of this decision until full
payment; and (c) the petitioner shall pay the costs of suit.
V.

MALTO V. PEOPLE, GR 16473

Facts of the Case:
Sometime during the month of November 1997 to 1998, Malto
seduced his student, AAA, a minor, to indulge in sexual intercourse
several times with him. Prior to the incident, petitioner and AAA
had a mutual understanding and became sweethearts. Pressured
and afraid of the petitioners threat to end their relationship, AAA
succumbed and both had sexual intercourse.
Upon discovery of what AAA underwent, AAAs mother lodged a
complaint in the Office of the City Prosecutor of Pasay City.
Assistant City Prosecutor charged the petitioner in an Information a

violation of Section 5(a), Article III, RA 7610. During the month of

November 1997 up to 1998, in Pasay City, Michael John. Z. Malto, a
professor, did then and there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously
take advantage and exert influence, relationship and moral
ascendancy and induce and/or seduce his student at Assumption
College, complainant, AAA, a minor of 17 years old, to indulge in
sexual intercourse and lascivious conduct for several times with him
as in fact said accused has carnal knowledge.
The trial court found the evidence for the prosecution sufficient to
sustain petitioners conviction and rendered a decision finding
petitioner guilty beyond reasonable doubt for violation of Article
III, Section 5(a), par. 3 of RA 7610, as amended and sentenced him
to reclusion temporal.
In a decision, the appellate court affirmed his conviction even if it
found that his acts were not covered by paragraph (a) but by
paragraph (b) of Section 5, Article III of RA 7610; and thereby
sentenced to an indeterminate penalty prision mayor.
Issue:
Whether or not the CA erred in sustaining petitioners conviction on
the grounds that there was no rape committed since their sexual
intercourse was consensual by reason of their sweetheart
relationship
Ruling:
NEGATIVE. Petitioner is wrong.
Petitioner violated Section 5(b), Article III of RA 7610, as amended.
The first element of Section 5(b), Article III of RA 7610 pertains to
the act or acts committed by the accused. The second element refers
to the state or condition of the offended party. The third element
corresponds to the minority or age of the offended party. Since all
three elements of the crime were present, the conviction of
petitioner was proper.
Consent of the child is immaterial in criminal cases involving
violation of Sec. 5, Art. III of RA 7610. Petitioner claims that AAA
welcomed his kisses and touches and consented to have sexual
intercourse with him. They engaged in these acts out of mutual love
and affection. The sweetheart theory applies in acts of
lasciviousness and rape, felonies committed against or without the
consent of the victim. It operates on the theory that the sexual act
was consensual. It requires proof that the accused and the victim
were lovers and that she consented to the sexual relations.30
For purposes of sexual intercourse and lascivious conduct in child
abuse cases under RA 7610, the sweetheart defense is unacceptable.
A child exploited in prostitution or subjected to other sexual abuse
cannot validly give consent to sexual intercourse with another
person.
A child cannot give consent to a contract under our civil laws. This
is on the rationale that she can easily be the victim of fraud as she is
not capable of fully understanding or knowing the nature or import

of her actions. The State, as parens patriae, is under the obligation

to minimize the risk of harm to those who, because of their
minority, are as yet unable to take care of themselves fully. Those of
tender years deserve its protection.
The harm which results from a childs bad decision in a sexual
encounter may be infinitely more damaging to her than a bad
business deal. Thus, the law should protect her from the harmful
consequences of her attempts at adult sexual behavior. For this
reason, a child should not be deemed to have validly consented to
adult sexual activity and to surrender herself in the act of ultimate
physical intimacy under a law which seeks to afford her special
protection against abuse, exploitation and discrimination. In other
words, a child is presumed by law to be incapable of giving rational
consent to any lascivious act or sexual intercourse.
To provide special protection to children from all forms of abuse,
neglect, cruelty, exploitation and discrimination, and other
conditions prejudicial to their development; provide sanctions for
their commission and carry out a program for prevention and
deterrence of and crisis intervention in situations of child abuse,
exploitation, and discrimination. [A]s well as to intervene on behalf
of the child when the parents, guardian, teacher or person having
care or custody of the child fails or is unable to protect the child
against abuse, exploitation, and discrimination or when such acts
against the child are committed by the said parent, guardian,
teacher or person having care and custody of the same.
The best interest of children shall be the paramount consideration
in all actions concerning them, whether undertaken by public or
private social welfare institutions, courts of law, administrative
authorities, and legislative bodies, consistent with the principles of
First Call for Children as enunciated in the United Nations
Convention on the Rights of the Child. Every effort shall be exerted
to promote the welfare of children and enhance their opportunities
for a useful and happy life.
C. COMMENTS BY LEGAL LUMINARIES/ EXPERTS
DANGEROUS LAWS By: Atty. Rogelio D. Evasco
Dangerous Laws in the Philippines: Section 6 of Republic Act 7610.
Attention foreigners with generous hearts, BEWARE.
An Australian national who was on a two-week holiday in the Philippines had
befriended several Manila street children. He would give them biscuits, juice
drinks in tetra pack. Other times, he would treat them to a fastfood chain for
lunch or snacks. One day, he invited these children to the condominium hotel he
was renting, and let them watch movies on his TV, enjoy the air conditioning, let
them take a bath, even gave them clothes.
A day later, he was arrested and paid a fine of P120,000.00 (roughly US$2,500)
and was imprisoned for a few months.
Here's the RA 7610 provision:
Section 6. Attempt To Commit Child Prostitution. There is an attempt to
commit child prostitution under Section 5, paragraph (a) hereof when any person

who, not being a relative of a child, is found alone with the said child inside the
room or cubicle of a house, an inn, hotel, motel, pension house, apartelle or other
similar establishments, vessel, vehicle or any other hidden or secluded area under
circumstances which would lead a reasonable person to believe that the child is
about to be exploited in prostitution and other sexual abuse.
There is also an attempt to commit child prostitution, under paragraph (b) of
Section 5 hereof when any person is receiving services from a child in a sauna
parlor or bath, massage clinic, health club and other similar establishments. A
penalty lower by two (2) degrees than that prescribed for the consummated
felony under Section 5 hereof shall be imposed upon the principals of the attempt
to commit the crime of child prostitution under this Act, or, in the proper case,
under the Revised Penal Code.
One of the laws that might get you in trouble for doing a good deed is Republic
Act 7610.
One case in point: An island resort hires locals as its staff [chambermaid, front
desk, waiter/waitresses, chef, utility, security, etc.] and allots a staff quarter for
them to stay. Some, since they are locals, bring in their family to the island resort.
The owner allows this because it makes the staff efficient and available 24/7,
hence a separate cottage is assigned to them. One particular staff brought in her
three minor children, since both she and her husband are employed in the island
resort. The owner provided food for the family, even providing school supplies to
the children and paying for their school expenses [projects, contributions,
boy/girl scout fees].
One day, barangay officials went to fetch the owner. They told the owner that the
three children were brought to the local police station because they were caught
in the act of stealing from the resort's guests. Apparently, guests of the island
resort in the past have lost money, gadgets, and jewelry but it always gets settled
because the owner would compensate the guest for lost items, and most of the
times, guests will not bother for a little amount of money.
When the owner arrived at the precinct, the owner scolded the children and
reminded them of the consequences of their wrong deed. The children, after all,
were like family to the resort owner.
The parents of the children served detention time. A year past, the resort owner
was served subpoena for RA 7610 - or the Violence Against Women and Children
(VAWC) Act. The owner was sued by the parents for "child abuse" and was
demanded to pay them P750,000 (P250,000 per child), for damages because the
children "suffered mental anguish when they were humiliated in public".
Such a sad fate. This story is an epic example of a law that is often abused,
especially by those who wish to rob their employers who have been good to them.
They knew that a labor case will not hold water, but a 7610 case will. After all,
most of 7610 cases favor the so-called "violated woman or child/children"
whatever the merits may be.
D. SIMILAR FOREIGN LAWS
1. ENGLAND
Department of Education is responsible for Child Protection. It sets
out policy, legislation, and statutory guidance on how the child
protection system should work.
Local Safeguarding Children Boards (LSCBs), coordinates and
ensure the effectiveness of, work to protect and promote the welfare

of children. Local Board includes: local authorities, health bodies,

police and others, invading voluntary and independent sectors.
Children Act of 1989, amended by Children and families Act of
2014- is equivalent to PD 603.
Safeguarding Vulnerable Groups Act 2006- An act to make
provision in connection with the protection of children and
vulnerable adults. Prevents individuals who are on the barred list
to be involve in regulated activities relating to children and even
adults.
Children and Families Act 2014- Encourages fostering for adoption
which allows approved adopters to foster children while they wait
for court approval to adopt; Introduces a 26 week time limit for the
courts to decide whether or not a child should be taken into care;
Staying put arrangements which allow children in care to stay w/
their foster families until the age of 21 years; Introduces a single
assessment process and an Education, Health and Care Plan to
support children, young people and their families from birth to 25
years.
Adoption and Children Act 2002- Amended the Children Act 1989
by expanding the definition of harm to include witnessing
domestic violence.

2. CHINA
Minors Protection Law- it sets up responsibilities of the families,
the schools, and the government with regard to the protection of
childrens rights and judicial protection.
3. AUSTRALIA (Australian Capital Territory)
Children and Young People Act 2008- It was amended by
Legislation Act 2001. Defines a child as a person who is 12 years
old while a young person is defined as a person who is 12 years old
or older, but not yet an adult. The term used to describe a guardian
is a significant person.
- The Children and Young People Act 2008 (Act no.19/2008)
repealed the Children and Young People Act 1999. The Act
addressed the priority of responding early to concerns about
children and young people and improving outcomes for children
and young people in out-of-home care and 'therapeutic
protection.' The Act was passed on 17 July 2008.
4. MALAYSIA
Malaysia Act of 2001- a consolidation of three previous laws on
issues relating to child protection and juvenile justice, namely the
Juvenile Courts Act 1947, Women and Young Girls Protection Act
1973 and Child Protection Act 1991, is part of the protective legal
environment for children.
- A care taker is a person having the care of a child
- Establishment of One Stop Crisis Center