Case Summary (G.R. No. 171863)
Trial Court Findings and Ruling
The RTC acquitted Olayon in Criminal Case No. 116350 but convicted him in Criminal Case Nos. 112571 and 112572 for violating Section 10(a) of Republic Act No. 7610. The trial court acknowledged that Olayon admitted to sexual relations with the victim, who was then 14 years old. Olayon’s defense claimed that AAA was his consenting sweetheart. However, the court found that although the minor voluntarily accompanied Olayon and consented to sexual relations, this consent was legally immaterial under RA 7610 due to her minority status. The court emphasized that Section 10(a) penalizes "other acts of child abuse, cruelty or exploitation," including those prejudicial to the child's development, irrespective of consent. The trial court sentenced Olayon to prision mayor for each count but acquitted him of lasciviousness charges.
Court of Appeals Decision and Rationale
On appeal, the Court of Appeals reversed the trial court's conviction and acquitted Olayon. The appellate court held that "acts of child abuse" under Section 10(a) of RA 7610 referred to those specified under Section 3(b) of the same law, which includes psychological and physical abuse, cruelty, neglect, and emotional maltreatment but excludes consensual sexual intercourse. The court distinguished between "child abuse" under Section 10 and "sexual abuse" under Section 5 of RA 7610, finding them as separate offenses. It reasoned that "sexual abuse" under Section 5 characterizes acts related to child prostitution or sexual conduct involving coercion or inducement. Since the record showed that Olayon's acts were consensual and without coercion or intimidation, the appellate court concluded that these acts did not constitute child abuse under Section 10(a).
Petition for Certiorari Filed by the People
The Department of Justice, representing the People of the Philippines, filed a certiorari petition alleging grave abuse of discretion on the part of the Court of Appeals for acquitting Olayon, despite the clearly abusive nature of his sexual acts with a minor covered by Section 10(a) of RA 7610. They argued that the acts involving the 14-year-old victim were harmful to her development and thus punishable under the special protection law.
Analysis of Applicable Provisions and Related Jurisprudence
The Court emphasized that Section 10(a) punishes acts constituting "other acts of child abuse, cruelty or exploitation" that are prejudicial to a child's development but are not specifically covered by the Revised Penal Code or other special laws related to child prostitution, trafficking, or indecent shows, which are separately penalized under Sections 5 to 9 of RA 7610. Section 5 in particular penalizes sexual intercourse or lascivious conduct with a child "exploited in prostitution or subject to other sexual abuse," contingent on coercion, inducement, or influence by an adult. The Court referred to the Rules and Regulations implementing RA 7610 that define sexual abuse as involving coercion, persuasion, or inducement of a child to engage in sexual activities.
Two key Supreme Court precedents were cited:
- People v. Larin established that psychological coercion or moral ascendancy may satisfy the coercion element under Section 5(b) for sexual abuse.
- Malto v. People affirmed that the exercise of moral ascendancy or influence over a minor victim is integral to establishing culpability for sexual abuse under RA 7610.
Because the records in Olayon's case showed no evidence of coercion, intimidation, persuasion, or influence over the minor, the Court concluded that the acts did not fall within the ambit of Section 5(b) or any other provision of RA 7610 that would render the acts criminal under the special law. Consequently, even if charged under Section 5(b), Olayon would have been acquitted.
Final Disposition and Legal Conclusion
The Supreme Court denied the petition for certiorari, affirming the Court of Appeals’ acquittal of Olayon for violation of Section 10(a) of RA 7610. The Court clarified that consensual sexual intercourse with a minor, absent coercion or influence,
Case Syllabus (G.R. No. 171863)
Case Background and Charges
- Gaspar Olayon, then 22 years old, was charged before the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Pasig City for violation of Section 10(a) of Republic Act No. 7610, known as The Special Protection of Children against Abuse, Exploitation, and Discrimination Act.
- Two separate Informations (Criminal Cases Nos. 112571 and 112572) charged him with willfully, unlawfully, and feloniously having sexual intercourse and committing lewd and lascivious acts upon a minor, identified as AAA, who was 14 years old at the time.
- A third case (Criminal Case No. 116350), initially filed for acts of lasciviousness involving the same victim, was transferred to Pasig RTC and consolidated with the two aforementioned cases.
- The incidents occurred on January 27, 1997, in Taguig, Metro Manila.
Trial Court Decision
- The three cases were jointly tried by Branch 158 of the Pasig City RTC.
- Olayon was acquitted of the lasciviousness charge in Criminal Case No. 116350.
- However, he was convicted in Criminal Case Nos. 112571 and 112572 for violating Section 10(a) of R.A. No. 7610.
- The trial court found that although AAA denied consenting to sexual liaisons, the evidence showed otherwise; AAA voluntarily went with Olayon to the place where the acts occurred.
- The court reasoned that:
- AAA could have resisted or shouted for help but did not do so.
- The house where the acts occurred was accessible to others who could have intervened.
- Despite AAA’s consent, the trial court held that Olayon took advantage of AAA's minority to engage in sexual relations.
- Importantly, the court emphasized that consent is not a defense under this special law.
- Consequently, Olayon was sentenced to six years, eight months, and one day to seven years and four months of prision mayor for each count.
Court of Appeals Ruling on Appeal
- Olayon appealed, and the Court of Appeals (CA) reversed the trial court's conviction.
- The CA explicitly addressed whether consensual sexual intercourse with a minor constitutes child abuse under Section 10(a) of R.A. No. 7610 and answered in the negative.
- The CA clarified the definitions under R.A. No. 7610:
- Section 3(b) defines "Child Abuse" as maltreatment including psychological and physical abuse, neglect, cruelty, sexual abuse, and emotional maltreatment.
- Section 5 defines "sexual abuse" in a distinct manner related to child prostitution and exploitation for money, profit, or coercion.
- The CA reasoned that consensual sexual intercourse does not fall under the "sexual abuse" definition, which is specifically associated with child prostitution.
- The decision highlighted that coercion or intimidation must be present for an act to be considered sexual abuse under Section 5; none was found in this case due to freely given consent.
- Hence