Case Digest (G.R. No. 260233)
Case Digest (G.R. No. 260233)
Facts:
Jeffrey Gramatica y Laurista v. People, G.R. No. 260233, and People v. XXX266039, G.R. No. 266039, August 12, 2025, Supreme Court En Banc, Inting, J., writing for the Court.In G.R. No. 260233 petitioner Jeffrey Gramatica was charged in multiple Informations with (a) illegal sale of dangerous drugs (RA No. 9165) and (b) violations of Section 5(b) and Section 10(a) of Republic Act No. 7610 (Special Protection of Children Against Abuse, Exploitation, and Discrimination Act) for acts involving two minors identified in the record as BBB and AAA. At trial the RTC (Branch __, La Trinidad, Benguet) acquitted Gramatica of the drug sale charge but convicted him of lascivious conduct under Section 5(b) (Criminal Case No. 15‑CR‑10797) and of child abuse under Section 10(a) (Criminal Case No. 15‑CR‑10798), and acquitted him in another related count. The Court of Appeals affirmed with modification the RTC’s decision as to damages; Gramatica filed a petition for review under Rule 45.
In G.R. No. 266039 the accused-appellant (captioned in the sources as XXX266039) was charged with violating Section 5(b) of RA 7610 for allegedly caressing the breasts and vagina of his 17‑year‑old granddaughter CCC on August 24, 2018. The RTC (Branch __, Lucena City) found the accused guilty of lascivious conduct under Section 5(b); the Court of Appeals affirmed with modification; the accused appealed to the Supreme Court.
The factual matrices: in Gramatica the prosecution presented testimony that minors BBB and AAA were addicted to methamphetamine ("shabu"), engaged in sex in exchange for drugs or money, and that Gramatica had sexual relations with one of the minors and sold drugs to the other. Medical findings corroborated prior sexual activity. Gramatica denied culpability, claiming consensual relations and lack of knowledge of minority. In the XXX266039 case the victim testified she was asleep when her grandfather inserted his hand into her underwear and later fondled her breasts; the grandfather denied wrongdoing, claiming he only woke her to assist with eye medicine.
Both cases raised the broader question of how Section 5(b) of RA 7610 (child prostitution and other sexual abuse) relates to acts of lasciviousness under the Revised Penal Code (Art. 336) and whether RA 7610 applies to every lascivious act against a minor aged 12–18 (now 16–18 after RA 11648). The cases reached the Supreme Court by petitions from the parties: Gramatica by Rule 45 petition for review on certiorari; XXX266039 by appeal from the CA (notice of appeal).
Issues:
- Did the Court of Appeals err in affirming petitioner Jeffrey Gramatica’s convictions for violation of Section 5(b) and Section 10(a) of RA 7610?
- Did the Court of Appeals err in affirming accused-appellant XXX266039’s conviction under Section 5(b) of RA 7610, or should he instead be convicted under Article 336 of the Revised Penal Code?
- Whether Section 5(b) of RA 7610 (as amended) applies to all acts of lasciviousness committed against minors aged 12–18 (now 16–18), or whether RA 7610 is limited to children “exploited in prostitution or subjected to other sexual abuse” (EPSOSA), leaving other cases to the Revised Penal Code.
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)