People vs.
IRENO BONAAGUA y BERCE vulnerability, but also the shame and embarrassment to
Facts:
●AAA and her mother left their house in Candelaria, Quezon
to spend the Christmas with accused-appellant in Las Pias
City. They stayed in the house of a certain Lola Jean, the
godmother in the wedding of her parents
●One afternoon, AAA (8 years old) was inside a room lying in
bed. Her mother was not home. Accused-appellant Ireno,
AAA’s biological father, entered the room. He approached
her, rolled her shirt upward, and removed her shorts and
panty. She tried to resist by putting her clothes back on, but
her father’s strength prevailed. Thereafter, accused-appellant
touched and caressed her breasts, licked her vagina and
inserted his finger into it.
●Later in the evening, the accused-appellant raped AAA again
in the same manner and under the same circumstances. AAA
did not tell her mother that she was raped because accused-
appellant threatened to kill her mother. In December 1999,
AAA was raped by accused-appellant for the third time. In
December 2000, AAA was raped for the fourth and fifth time.
●AAA suffered abdominal pail which prompted her mother to
bring her to the hospital. The results revealed that there was
a healed superficial laceration at the 9 o’ clock position on the
hymen of AAA. This medical finding forced AAA to reveal to
her mother all the incidents of rape committed by accused-
appellant.
●After being discharged from the hospital, AAAs mother took
her to the Police Headquarters of Sariaya, Quezon to file a
complaint for rape against accused-appellant.
●The RTC ruled that Ireno was guilty of four counts of Rape.
Aggrieved, Ireno appealed the Decision before the CA, which
convicted Ireno on 3 counts of Rape but found him guilty of
one count of Acts of Lasciviousness. Ireno now seeks the
reversal of the decision.
●Accused-appellant denied committing the charges of rape
hurled against him. He claimed to be working in Las Pias City
while AAA, her mother and siblings where in Quezon at the
time the alleged rapes occurred. While he admitted that
there were times when AAA and her mother would visit him
in Las Pias City, he nonetheless averred that they would leave
on the same day they arrived after he gives them money.
●Accused-appellant asserted further that the charges of rape
against him were fabricated by AAAs mother, who suspected
him of having an affair with another woman in Las Pias City.
Issues:
1. Whether or not the accused-appellant is convicted of the
crime of Rape. YES
2. Whether or not the accused-appellant is convicted of Acts
of Lasciviousness.
Ruling:
●Yes. It is well entrenched in this jurisdiction that when the
offended parties are young and immature girls, as in this
case, courts are inclined to lend credence to their version of
what transpired, considering not only their relative
1
which they would be exposed if the matter about which they
testified were not true.
●A young girl would not usually concoct a tale of defloration;
publicly admit having been ravished and her honor tainted;
had she not in fact been raped and been truly moved to
protect and preserve her honor, and motivated by the desire
to obtain justice for the wicked acts committed against her.
The Court has repeatedly held that the lone testimony of the
victim in a rape case, if credible, is enough to sustain a
conviction.
●Moreover, the fact that AAA has only one healed laceration
on her hymen does not prove that rape did not happen. The
medical findings clarified that only one laceration may be
inflicted although a finger is inserted into the vagina on
separate instances which depend upon the force exerted into
the vagina and on whether or not the hymen is membranous
or firm and thick.
●A thick and firm hymen, which AAA has, is not easily
lacerated and so a force exerted into it on several occasions
may cause only one laceration. Hence, Ireno has committed 3
counts of Rape through Sexual Assault. The offenses were
committed with the aggravating/qualifying circumstances of
minority and relationship.
2. Yes. Acts of Lasciviousness, as defined in Article 336 of the
RPC, has the following elements:
(1) That the offender commits any act of lasciviousness or
lewdness;
(2) That it is done under any of the following circumstances:
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) That the offended party is another person of either sex.
In addition, the following elements of sexual abuse under
Section 5,
●Article III of R.A. No. 7610 must be established:
1. The accused commits the act of sexual intercourse or
lascivious conduct.
2. The said act is performed with a child exploited in
prostitution or subjected to other sexual abuse.
3. The child, whether male or female, is below 18 years of
age.
●R.A. No. 7610 defines Lascivious conduct as:
The intentional touching, either directly or through clothing,
of the genitalia, anus, groin, breast, inner thigh, or buttocks,
or the introduction of any object into the genitalia, anus or
mouth, of any person, whether of the same or opposite sex,
with an intent to abuse, humiliate, harass, degrade, or arouse
or gratify the sexual desire of any person, bestiality,
masturbation, lascivious exhibition of the genitals or pubic
area of a person.
All these elements are present. Ireno committed lascivious
acts against AAA by touching her breasts and licking her
vagina and the lascivious or lewd acts were committed
against AAA, who was 8 years old at the time as established
by her birth certificate. Thus, the CA correctly found Ireno
guilty of the crime of Acts of Lasciviousness.
Hence, Ireno is found guilty of 3 counts of Rape through
Sexual Assault and 1 count of Acts of Lasciviousness.
Rosaldes v. People
Facts:
●The petitioner Felina Rosaldes, a public schoolteacher, was
charged and found guilty of child abuse punished under RA
7610.
●It appears from the records that seven year old Michael
Ryan Gonzales, then a Grade 1 pupil, was hurriedly entering
his classroom when he accidentally bumped the knee of his
teacher, herein petitioner, who was then asleep on a bamboo
sofa. Petitioner asked Michael to apologize, the latter,
however, proceeded instead to his seat.
●Petitioner then pinched Michael on his thigh, held him up by
his armpits and pushed him to the floor causing him to hit a
desk and, consequently, losing his consciousness. Petitioner
proceeded to pick Michael by his ears and repeatedly
slammed him down on the floor.
●Petitioner contends that she did not deliberately inflict the
physical injuries suffered by Michael to maltreat or malign
him in a manner that would debase, demean or degrade his
dignity and avers that her maltreatment is only an act of
discipline that she as a schoolteacher could reasonably do
towards the development of the child.
Issue: Is petitioner guilty of the crime of child abuse
punishable under RA 7610
Ruling:
●YES, petitioner Rosaldes is guilty of violation of RA 7610.
Although the petitioner, as a schoolteacher, 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.
●Section 3 of Republic Act No. 7610 defines child abuse:
(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.
2
●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 physical pain experienced by the victim had
been aggravated by an emotional trauma that caused him to
stop going to school altogether out of fear of the petitioner,
compelling his parents to transfer him to another school
where he had to adjust again. Such established circumstances
proved beyond reasonable doubt that the petitioner was
guilty of child abuse by deeds that degraded and demeaned
the intrinsic worth and dignity of Michael Ryan as a human
being.
Hence, petitioner Rosaldes is guilty of the crime of child
abuse punished under RA 7610.
BONGALON VS PEOPLE
Facts:
●The Prosecution showed that on May 11, 2002, Jayson Dela
Cruz (Jayson) and Roldan, his older brother, both minors,
joined the evening procession for the Santo Niño at Oro Site
in Legazpi City; that when the procession passed in front of
the petitioner’s house, the latter’s daughter Mary Ann Rose,
also a minor, threw stones at Jayson and called him “sissy”;
●that the petitioner confronted Jayson and Roldan and called
them names like “strangers” and “animals”; that the
petitioner struck Jayson at the back with his hand, and
slapped Jayson on the face; that the petitioner then went to
the brothers’ house and challenged Rolando dela Cruz, their
father, to a fight, but Rolando did not come out of the house
to take on the petitioner;
●that Rolando later brought Jayson to the Legazpi City Police
Station and reported the incident; that Jayson also
underwent medical treatment at the Bicol Regional Training
and Teaching Hospital; that the doctors who examined Jayson
issued two medical certificates attesting that Jayson suffered
contusions.
●On his part, the petitioner denied having physically abused
or maltreated Jayson. He explained that he only talked with
Jayson and Roldan after Mary Ann Rose and Cherrylyn, his
minor daughters, had told him about Jayson and Roldan’s
throwing stones at them and about Jayson’s burning
Cherrylyn’s hair. He denied shouting invectives at and
challenging Rolando to a fight, insisting that he only told
Rolando to restrain his sons from harming his daughters. ●To
corroborate the petitioner’s testimony, Mary Ann Rose
testified that her father did not hit or slap but only
confronted Jayson, asking why Jayson had called her
daughters “Kimi” and why he had burned Cherrlyn’s hair.
●Mary Ann Rose denied throwing stones at Jayson and calling
him a “sissy.” She insisted that it was instead Jayson who had
pelted her with stones during the procession. She described
the petitioner as a loving and protective father.
Issues: Whether or not petitioner is liable for child abuse.

Held:
●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. x x x x
●Child abuse, the crime charged, is defined by Section 3 (b) of
Republic Act No. 7610, as follows:
Section 3. Definition of terms. – x x x x (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.
●The records did not establish beyond reasonable doubt that
his laying of hands on Jayson had been intended to debase
the “intrinsic worth and dignity” of Jayson as a human being,
or that he had thereby intended to humiliate or embarrass
Jayson. The records showed the laying of hands on Jayson to
have been done at the spur of the moment and in anger,
indicative of his being then overwhelmed by his fatherly
concern for the personal safety of his own minor daughters
who had just suffered harm at the hands of Jayson and
Roldan. With the loss of his self-control, he lacked that
specific intent to debase, degrade or demean the intrinsic
worth and dignity of a child as a human being that was so
essential in the crime of child abuse.
PEOPLE VS CASIO
Facts:
●On May 2, 2008, International Justice Mission (IJM), a
nongovernmental organization, coordinated with the police
in order to entrap persons engaged in human trafficking in
Cebu City. Chief PSI George Ylanan, SPO1 Felomino
Mendaros, SPO1 Fe Altubar, PO1 Albert Luardo, and PO1 Roy
Carlo Veloso composed the team of police operatives, Luardo
and Veloso were designated as decoys, pretending to be tour
guides looking for girls to entertain their guests.
●IJM provided them with marked money, which was
recorded in the police blotter. The team went to Queensland
Motel and rented adjacent Rooms 24 and 25. Room 24 was
designated for the transaction while Room 25 was for the rest
of the police team.
●PO1 Luardo and PO1 Veloso proceeded to D. Jakosalem
Street in Barangay Kamagayan, Cebu City’s red light district
where the accused noticed them and called their attention.
3
Negotiation occured and upon the signal, the accused was
arrested and the two minors were taken into custody by the
DSWD officials.
Issue: Whether or not accused is liable for trafficking of
persons.
Held:
●Yes. Under Republic Act No. 10364, the elements of
trafficking in persons have been expanded to include the
following acts:
(1) The act of “recruitment, obtaining, hiring, providing,
offering, transportation, transfer, maintaining, harboring, or
receipt of persons with or without the victim’s consent or
knowledge, within or across national borders;”
(2) The means used include “by means of threat, or use of
force, or other forms of coercion, abduction, fraud,
deception, abuse of power or of position, taking advantage of
the vulnerability of the person, or, the giving or receiving of
payments or benefits to achieve the consent of a person
having control over another person”
(3) The purpose of trafficking includes “the exploitation or the
prostitution of others or other forms of sexual exploitation,
forced labor or services, slavery, servitude or the removal or
sale of organs”
The Court of Appeals found that AAA and BBB were recruited
by accused when their services were peddled to the police
who acted as decoys. AAA was a child at the time that
accused peddled her services to work as a prostitute because
she needed money. AAA also stated that she agreed Accused
took advantage of AAA’s vulnerability as a child and as one
who need money, as proven by the testimonies of the
witnesses.
Knowledge or consent of the minor is not a defense under
Republic Act No. 9208.
“The recruitment, transportation, transfer, harboring,
adoption or receipt of a child for the purpose of exploitation
or when the adoption is induced by any form of consideration
for exploitative purposes shall also be considered as
‘trafficking in persons’ even if it does not involve any of the
means set forth in the preceding paragraph.”
Accused is further guilty of qualified trafficking. SEC. 6.
Qualified Trafficking in Persons. The following are considered
as qualified trafficking:
1. When the trafficked person is a child;
2. When the adoption is effected through Republic Act
No. 8043, otherwise known as the “Inter-Country
Adoption Act of 1995” and said adoption is for the
purpose of prostitution, pornography, sexual
exploitation,forced labor, slavery, involuntary
servitude or debt bondage;
3. When the crime is committed by a syndicate, or in
large scale. Trafficking is deemed committed by a
 syndicate if carried out by a group of three (3) or
more persons conspiring or confederating with one
another. It is deemed committed in large scale if
committed against three (3) or more persons,
individually or as a group;
4. When the offender is an ascendant, parent, sibling,
guardian or a person who exercise authority over the
trafficked person or when the offense is committed
by a public officer or employee;
5. When the trafficked person is recruited to engage in
prostitution with any member of the military or law
enforcement agencies;
6. When the offender is a member of the military or
law enforcement agencies; and
7. When by reason or on occasion of the act of
trafficking in persons, the offended party dies,
becomes insane, suffers mutilation or is afflicted
with Human Immunod eficiency Virus (HIV) or the
Acquired Immune Deficiency Syndrome (AIDS).
Domingo vs. Rayala
Facts:
●Ma. Lourdes T. Domingo (Domingo), then Stenographic
Reporter III at the NLRC, filed a Complaint for sexual
harassment against Rayala, the chairman of NLRC.
She alleged that Rayala called her in his office and touched
her shoulder, part of her neck then tickled her ears.
●Rayala argued that his acts does not constitute sexual
harassment because for it to exist, there must be a demand,
request or requirement of sexual favor.
compensation, terms, conditions, promotions, or privileges;
or the refusal to grant the sexual favor results in limiting,
segregating or classifying the employee which in a way would
discriminate, deprive or diminish employment opportunities
or otherwise adversely affect said employee;
(2) The above acts would impair the employee’s rights or
privileges under existing labor laws; or
(3) The above acts would result in an intimidating, hostile, or
offensive environment for the employee.
Even if we were to test Rayala’s acts strictly by the standards
set in Section 3, RA 7877, he would still be administratively
liable. It is true that this provision calls for a “demand,
request or requirement of a sexual favor.” But it is not
necessary that the demand, request or requirement of a
sexual favor be articulated in a categorical oral or written
statement. It may be discerned, with equal certitude, from
the acts of the offender. Holding and squeezing Domingo’s
shoulders, running his fingers across her neck and tickling her
ear, having inappropriate conversations with her, giving her
money allegedly for school expenses with a promise of future
privileges, and making statements with unmistakable sexual
overtones – all these acts of Rayala resound with deafening
clarity the unspoken request for a sexual favor.

Issue:
Whether or not Rayala commit sexual harassment.

Rulings:
Yes.
The law penalizing sexual harassment in our jurisdiction is RA
7877. Section 3 thereof defines work-related sexual
harassment in this wise:
Sec. 3. Work, Education or Training-related Sexual
Harassment Defined. – Work, education or training-related
sexual harassment is committed by an employer, manager,
supervisor, agent of the employer, teacher, instructor,
professor, coach, trainor, or any other person who, having
authority, influence or moral ascendancy over another in a
work or training or education environment, demands,
requests or otherwise requires any sexual favor from the
other, regardless of whether the demand, request or
requirement for submission is accepted by the object of said
Act.

(a) In a work-related or employment environment, sexual

harassment is committed when:
(1) The sexual favor is made as a condition in the hiring or in
the employment, re-employment or continued employment
of said individual, or in granting said individual favorable
4