Title
Caballo vs. People
Case
G.R. No. 198732
Decision Date
Jun 10, 2013
A 23-year-old man was convicted under RA 7610 for coercing a 17-year-old minor into repeated sexual acts, resulting in pregnancy. The court ruled consent irrelevant, emphasizing protection of minors.

Case Digest (G.R. No. 198732)
Expanded Legal Reasoning Model

Facts:

  • Charge and Procedural History
    • On March 16, 1999, an Information was filed charging Christian Caballo (23 years old) with violating Section 10(a), Article VI of RA 7610; it was amended May 28, 1999 to include allegations of pregnancy and delivery.
    • Upon arraignment, Caballo pleaded not guilty.
    • The RTC of Surigao City (Branch 30) in an April 1, 2003 Decision found him guilty under Section 10(a), Article VI of RA 7610 and sentenced him to an indeterminate term (4 years, 2 months, 1 day to 6 years, 8 months, 1 day) plus ₱50,000 moral damages.
    • The Court of Appeals (CA), in a January 28, 2011 Decision (denied on reconsideration September 26, 2011), affirmed with modification, convicting him under Section 5(b), Article III of RA 7610.
    • Caballo elevated the case to the Supreme Court via petition for review on certiorari.
  • Relationship and Alleged Acts
    • AAA (17 years old at relevant time) met Caballo in Surigao City through her uncle’s dance troupe; Caballo later visited her in Cebu City in January 1998 and they became sweethearts.
    • Between late March and November 1998, Caballo induced AAA to have sexual intercourse on several occasions in Surigao and once in Cebu.
    • AAA became pregnant in June 1998 and gave birth on March 8, 1999.
    • Prosecution’s theory: Caballo used promises of marriage and assurances of the “withdrawal method,” then encouraged an abortion and later reassured AAA’s mother he would marry her.
    • Defense’s theory: AAA was not a virgin, had prior boyfriends, consented as a willing partner, they cohabited briefly, and she rejected his marriage proposals due to studies.

Issues:

  • Whether Caballo’s promises of marriage and use of the withdrawal method constitute “persuasion or inducement” amounting to “coercion or influence of any adult” under Section 5(b), Article III of RA 7610.
  • Whether, given AAA’s minority, consent is immaterial and the sweetheart defense is inadmissible in child sexual abuse under RA 7610.

Ruling:

  • (Subscriber-Only)

Ratio:

  • (Subscriber-Only)

Doctrine:

  • (Subscriber-Only)

Analyze Cases Smarter, Faster
Jur helps you analyze cases smarter to comprehend faster—building context before diving into full texts.