G.R. No. 171863 - People vs. Court of Appeals

Gaspar Olayon (respondent), aged 22, was charged with violations of Section 10(a) of Republic Act No. 7610 (Special Protection of Children Against Abuse, Exploitation, and Discrimination Act) in two Informations before the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Pasig City.
The complainant was a minor, AAA, 14 years old at the time of the alleged offenses.
Two separate criminal cases (Nos. 112571 and 112572) filed alleged that on January 27, 1997, Olayon willfully, unlawfully, and feloniously had sexual intercourse and committed lewd and lascivious acts upon AAA in Taguig, Metro Manila.
Another charge for acts of lasciviousness was filed separately (Criminal Case No. 116350) in the RTC of Taguig but was transferred and consolidated with the two Pasig RTC cases.

Acquitted Olayon for the acts of lasciviousness (Case No. 116350).
Convicted Olayon for violation of Section 10(a) of RA 7610 in Cases Nos. 112571 and 112572, sentencing him to prision mayor in its minimum period for each count.

Olayon admitted sexual liaisons with AAA.
Olayon’s defenses were that AAA was his sweetheart and that the acts were consensual.
The court believed AAA did not manifest resistance at the time of the incidents.
Despite the apparent consent, the court ruled that consent was not a valid defense under RA 7610 when the victim is a minor, holding Olayon liable for taking advantage of the minor’s minority.

On appeal, the Court of Appeals reversed the RTC decision and acquitted Olayon in a Decision dated January 13, 2006.
The CA held that:

“Acts of child abuse” under Section 10(a) of RA 7610 refers to the forms of maltreatment enumerated in Section 3(b), such as psychological abuse, neglect, cruelty, sexual abuse, and emotional maltreatment, but not consensual sexual intercourse.
“Sexual abuse” is separately defined under Section 5 of RA 7610, relating to child prostitution and sexual abuse involving coercion, inducement, profit, or influence.
Since the sexual acts were consensual and lacked coercion or intimidation, these did not fall under “sexual abuse” under Section 5, nor correspondingly under Section 10(a) which covers other forms of abuse prejudicial to the child’s development outside of Section 5’s scope.

The People of the Philippines filed a Rule 65 petition contesting the CA’s acquittal.
The petition alleged grave abuse of discretion by the CA in acquitting Olayon despite sexual acts committed on a minor falling within the ambit of “other acts prejudicial to the child’s development” under Section 10(a) of RA 7610.
The prosecution’s position was that consent was immaterial since the victim was a minor and the acts constituted child abuse.

Whether or not consensual sexual intercourse with a minor 14 years old constitutes child abuse under Section 10(a) of RA No. 7610.
Whether the Court of Appeals committed grave abuse of discretion in acquitting the respondent despite the admission and evidence of sexual acts with a minor victim.
Whether consent of the minor victim can be a valid defense under RA No. 7610 in cases involving sexual acts with minors.