Case Summary (G.R. No. 221103)
Procedural History
• RTC (Surigao City, Branch 30) found petitioner guilty of violating Section 10(a), Article VI, RA 7610 (sexual abuse of a minor) and sentenced him to an indeterminate term of prision correccional to prision mayor, plus ₱50,000 moral damages.
• On appeal, the CA held that the Information’s allegations actually fit Section 5(b), Article III, RA 7610 (sexual intercourse with a child “exploited … in other sexual abuse”), affirmed conviction with that qualification, and upheld moral damages.
• Reconsideration was denied; petitioner filed a petition for review on certiorari to the Supreme Court.
Issue
Whether AAA was a “child exploited in prostitution and other sexual abuse” under Section 5(b), Article III of RA 7610 by virtue of Caballo’s “coercion or influence,” thereby justifying conviction under that provision.
Legal Framework under RA 7610
• Section 5(a) defines a “child exploited … in other sexual abuse” as one who “induces … sexual intercourse or lascivious conduct … for money, profit, any other consideration or due to the coercion or influence of any adult.”
• Section 5(b) penalizes those who commit sexual intercourse with such a child, regardless of consent.
• “Influence” is improper use of power or trust that deprives free will; “coercion” is improper use of power to compel submission.
Analysis of Coercion and Influence
- Minor’s Vulnerability – At 17, AAA could not fully appreciate the nature or consequences of sexual acts; consent is immaterial under Section 5.
- Age Disparity – A six-year age gap placed petitioner in a position of authority.
- Repeated Assurances – Petitioner promised marriage and assured non-pregnancy via “withdrawal method,” clear overt acts of inducement.
- Duress in First Encounter – AAA initially resisted and asked him to leave but eventually yielded, evincing compulsion.
These factors satisfy the “coercion or influence” element, rendering AAA a “child exploited … in other sexual abuse.”
Presumption Against Consent and “Sweetheart Defense”
Under Malto v. People, a minor’s consent to sexual activity with an adult is
Case Syllabus (G.R. No. 221103)
Facts
- On March 16, 1999, an Information was filed in the RTC of Surigao City charging Christian Caballo, then 23 years old, with violation of Section 10(a), Article VI of R.A. 7610 for sexual abuse of AAA, a 17-year-old minor.
- The Information was amended on May 28, 1999 to include references to AAA’s pregnancy and delivery of a baby on March 8, 1999 as a result of repeated sexual intercourse with Caballo.
- AAA met Caballo at her uncle’s place in Surigao City; Caballo was a dancer under her uncle’s choreography, and AAA was a college sophomore residing in Cebu City.
- They became sweethearts after Caballo visited AAA during the Sinulog Festival (January 17, 1998); AAA returned to Surigao City in mid-March 1998.
- Between late March and November 1998, Caballo persuaded AAA on multiple occasions—in Surigao City and once in Cebu—to have sexual intercourse, promising marriage and claiming the “withdrawal method” would prevent pregnancy.
- AAA became pregnant in June 1998 and gave birth on March 8, 1999; Caballo’s advice to abort proved unsuccessful.
- At trial, Caballo asserted that AAA was no longer a virgin and had prior boyfriends, that their relationship was consensual, and that she repeatedly rejected his marriage proposals.
Procedural History
- RTC Decision (April 1, 2003): Found Caballo guilty beyond reasonable doubt of violating Section 10(a), Article VI of R.A. 7610 (sexual abuse of a minor), sentenced to prision correccional (max. four years, two months, one day) to prision mayor (min. six years, eight months, one day) and ordered to pay P50,000 moral damages.
- Caballo appealed to the Court of Appeals.
- CA Decision (January 28, 2011): Dismissed appeal but modified conviction to Section 5(b), Article III of R.A. 7610 (sexual intercourse with a child exploited in prostitution or other sexual abuse), upheld moral damages; Reconsideration den