Jump to content

RA 7610: How the Courts Have Interpreted the Law


Recommended Posts

rainymike

Although a proud member of the forum warrior crowd, when it comes to legal stuff, I try to look at more dependable sources of information. These articles might be an interesting read for those concerned about child abuse and how the law interprets child abuse. I know we are all focused on an adult being with a child as possible grounds for a criminal offense but I think these cases suggest that the primary concern of RA 7610 is whether child abuse is occurring or not.

 

As a parent, I am concerned about how the law is interpreted when it comes to physical punishment of a child (first case), sexual abuse of a minor - acts of a minor under the influence of an adult (second case), and a minor's ability to provide consent to sexual activity (third case) ... lol ... especially in light of some of the posts on this forum.

 

These cases are not meant to be all inclusive. They are illustrative of how the law is interpreted in this country. It may raise more questions for you. But hopefully it points you towards better sources of information than just opinions (although opinions are a good starting point).

 

I am not a lawyer and am not dispensing any legal advice ... just sharing some information on how the courts think.

 

http://thelawyerspost.net/ra-7610-every-act-laying-hands-child-child-abuse-act-act-intended-demean-debase-child-will-constitute-child-abuse/

 

 

George was charged for violation of Section 10 (a) of Republic Act 7610 when he allegedly hit Jayson, a 12-year old sixth grader, with his palms hitting Jayson at his back, and slapping him, at the same time uttering derogatory remarks, which acts according to the Information filed against him, are prejudicial to the child’s development and which demean the intrinsic worth and dignity of Jayson as a human being. In his defense, Geogre denied haveig physically abused or maltreated Jayson. He explained that he merely confronted Jayson after Mary Rose and Cherrylyn, his minor daughters, had told him about Jayson and Roldan’s throwing stones and them and Jayson’s burning of Cherrylyn’s hair. Mary Rose corroborated his father’s testimony, describing his father as a loving father.

 

After trial the RTC convicted him as charged and sentenced him to six years and one to eight years of prision mayor in its minimum period. The Court of Appeals modified the judgment by suffer the indeterminate penalty of (4) years, two (2) months and one (1) day of prision correccional, as minimum term, to six (6) years, eight (8) months and 1 day of prision mayor as the maximum term.

 

Jayson filed a petition for certiorari to reverse his conviction for child abuse.

 

The Supreme Court granted George’s appeal, even though he adopted the wrong remedy:

 

“The law under which the petitioner was charged, tried and found guilty of violating is Section 10 (a), Article VI of Republic Act No. 7610, which relevantly states:

 

Section 10. Other Acts of Neglect, Abuse, Cruelty or Exploitation and other Conditions Prejudicial to the Child’s Development. –

 

(a)  Any person who shall commit any other acts of child abuse, cruelty or exploitation or be responsible for other conditions prejudicial to the child’s development including those covered by Article 59 of Presidential Decree No. 603, as amended, but not covered by the Revised Penal Code, as amended, shall suffer the penalty of prision mayor in its minimum period.

 

x x x x

 

Child abuse, the crime charged, is defined by Section 3 (b) of Republic Act No. 7610, as follows:

 

Section 3. Definition of terms. –

 

x x x x

 

(b)“Child Abuse” refers to the maltreatment, whether habitual or not, of the child which includes any of the following:

 

(1)  Psychological and physical abuse, neglect, cruelty, sexual abuse and emotional maltreatment;

 

(2)  Any act by deeds or words which debases, degrades or demeans the intrinsic worth and dignity of a child as a human being;

 

(3)  Unreasonable deprivation of his basic needs for survival, such as food and shelter; or

 

(4)  Failure to immediately give medical treatment to an injured child resulting in serious impairment of his growth and development or in his permanent incapacity or death.

 

x x x x

 

Although we affirm the factual findings of fact by the RTC and the CA to the effect that the petitioner struck Jayson at the back with his hand and slapped Jayson on the face, we disagree with their holding that his acts constituted child abuse within the purview of the above-quoted provisions. The records did not establish beyond reasonable doubt that his laying of hands on Jayson had been intended to debase the “intrinsic worth and dignity” of Jayson as a human being, or that he had thereby intended to humiliate or embarrass Jayson. The records showed the laying of hands on Jayson to have been done at the spur of the moment and in anger, indicative of his being then overwhelmed by his fatherly concern for the personal safety of his own minor daughters who had just suffered harm at the hands of Jayson and Roldan. With the loss of his self-control, he lacked that specific intent to debase, degrade or demean the intrinsic worth and dignity of a child as a human being that was so essential in the crime of child abuse.

 

It is not trite to remind that under the well-recognized doctrine of pro reo every doubt is resolved in favor of the petitioner as the accused. Thus, the Court should consider all possible circumstances in his favor.[18]1

 

What crime, then, did the petitioner commit?

 

Considering that Jayson’s physical injury required five to seven days of medical attention, the petitioner was liable for slight physical injuries under Article 266 (1) of the Revised Penal Code, to wit:

 

Article 266. Slight physical injuries and maltreatment. — The crime of slight physical injuries shall be punished:

 

1. By arresto menor when the offender has inflicted physical injuries which shall incapacitate the offended party for labor from one to nine days, or shall require medical attendance during the same period.

 

x x x x

 

The penalty for slight physical injuries is arresto menor, which ranges from one day to 30 days of imprisonment.  In imposing the correct penalty, however, we have to consider the mitigating circumstance of passion or obfuscation under Article 13 (6) of the Revised Penal Code, because the petitioner lost his reason and self-control, thereby diminishing the exercise of his will power. Passion or obfuscation may lawfully arise from causes existing only in the honest belief of the accused. It is relevant to mention, too, that in passion or obfuscation, the offender suffers a diminution of intelligence and intent. With his having acted under the belief that Jayson and Roldan had thrown stones at his two minor daughters, and that Jayson had burned Cherrlyn’s hair, the petitioner was entitled to the mitigating circumstance of passion. Arresto menor is prescribed in its minimum period (i.e., one day to 10 days) in the absence of any aggravating circumstance that offset the mitigating circumstance of passion. Accordingly, with the Indeterminate Sentence Law being inapplicable due to the penalty imposed not exceeding one year,  the petitioner shall suffer a straight penalty of 10 days of arresto menor.”

 

FIRST DIVISION, G.R. No. 169533, March 20, 2013, GEORGE BONGALON, PETITIONER, VS. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, RESPONDENT.



 

http://thelawyerspost.net/ra-7610-a-child-is-deemed-subjected-to-other-sexual-abuse-when-he-or-she-engages-in-lascivious-conduct-under-the-influence-or-coercion-of-an-adult/

 

 

Vivencio, Executive Director of a credit cooperative, was charged with violation of Section 5(b) Article III of Republic Act 7610, after he allegedly mashed the breast of AAA, daughter of BBB who works as secretary and treasurer at the credit cooperative. AAA was left alone after BBB left for some errands. Vivencio then closed the door of the office, ashes AAA if she was feeling any pain, and when she answered “tooth ache”, proceeded to mash her breast. Not content with the breast, Vivencio also slid his hand towards her abdomen. When BBB returned, AAA narrated the incident, thus they reported it to the legal department. After trial, Vivencio was convicted as charred by the RTC, thus he appealed his conviction to the CA, which affirmed it. In his appeal to the Supreme Court, he alleges the following errors: he was charged with two offenses, one for violation of Art. 336 of the RPC, and one for violation of RA 7610; the prosecutor had no authority to filed the case, as the complaint for acts of lasciviousness was not signed by the mother or victim; further, the case for violation of Section 5(b) only applies when the child is engaged in prostitution; AAA, not being engaged in prostitution, the case should not apply to him.

 

The Supreme Court:

“The petition is bereft of any merit.

First, Roallos’ claim that the Information filed against him is duplicitous as it charged him with the commission of two crimes is plainly untenable. The designation of the crime in the Information is clear – Roallos was charged with the crime of acts of lasciviousness in relation to Section 5(b), Article III of R.A. No. 7610.

The mention of the phrase “acts of lasciviousness” in the Information does not mean that Roallos was charged with the felony of acts of lasciviousness under Article 336 of the RPC. The charge of acts of lasciviousness against Roallos is specifically delimited to that committed in relation to Section 5(b), Article III of R.A. No. 7610.

In any case, “the real nature of the criminal charge is determined not from the caption or preamble of the information, or from the specification of the provision of law alleged to have been violated, which are mere conclusions of law, but by the actual recital of the facts in the complaint or information.”

The recital of the ultimate facts and circumstances in the Information that was filed against Roallos clearly makes out a case for the offense of sexual abuse under Section 5(b), Article III of R.A. No. 7610. The elements of sexual abuse under Section 5(b), Article III of R.A. No. 7610 are as follows:

1. The accused commits the act of sexual intercourse or lascivious conduct[;]

2. The [said] act is performed with a child exploited in prostitution or subjected to other sexual abuse[; and]

3. The child, whether male or female, is below 18 years of age. (Emphasis supplied)

The Information that was filed against Roallos alleged that he committed lascivious acts towards AAA, i.e., that he mashed the breasts and kissed the cheeks of the latter. It likewise alleged that AAA, at the time she was subjected to sexual abuse by Roallos, was only 15 years of age. Clearly, all the elements of sexual abuse under Section 5(b), Article III of R.A. No. 7610 are set out in the Information that was filed against Roallos.

In this regard, the Court likewise finds that the CA and the RTC did not err in finding Roallos criminally liable for violation of Section 5(b), Article III of R.A. No. 7610. It is undisputed that AAA was only 15 years old at the time of the incident. Further, the prosecution was able to establish beyond reasonable doubt the committed lascivious conduct towards AAA, who is a child subjected to sexual abuse within the purview of Section 5(b), Article III of R.A. No. 7610.

That Roallos did in fact commit lascivious conduct towards AAA is a finding of fact by the lower courts, which this Court cannot simply disregard. In a criminal case, factual findings of the trial court are generally accorded great weight and respect on appeal, especially when such findings are supported by substantial evidence on record. It is only in exceptional circumstances, such as when the trial court overlooked material and relevant matters, that this Court will re-calibrate and evaluate the factual findings of the court below. The Court finds no reason to overturn the factual findings as the lower courts in this case.

Roallos’ assertion that he is not liable for sexual abuse under Section 5(b), Article III of R.A. No. 7610 since AAA is not a child engaged in prostitution is plainly without merit. “[T]he law covers not only a situation in which a child is abused for profit but also one in which a child, through coercion or intimidation, engages in any lascivious conduct. The very title of Section 5, Article III (Child Prostitution and Other Sexual Abuse) of R.A. No. 7610 shows that it applies not only to a child subjected to prostitution but also to a child subjected to other sexual abuse. A child is deemed subjected to “other sexual abuse” when he or she indulges in lascivious conduct under the coercion or influence of any adult.”

Second, Roallos’ claim that he was denied due process since he was arrested without any warrant of arrest and that he was not afforded a preliminary investigation is likewise untenable. In Miclat, Jr. v. People, the Court emphasized that the accused is estopped from assailing any irregularity attending his arrest should he fail to move for the quashal of the information against him on this ground prior to arraignment, viz:

At the outset, it is apparent that petitioner raised no objection to the irregularity of his arrest before his arraignment. Considering this and his active participation in the trial of the case, jurisprudence dictates that petitioner is deemed to have submitted to the jurisdiction of the trial court, thereby curing any defect in his arrest. An accused is estopped from assailing any irregularity of his arrest if he fails to raise this issue or to move for the quashal of the information against him on this ground before arraignment. Any objection involving a warrant of arrest or the procedure by which the court acquired jurisdiction over the person of the accused must be made before he enters his plea; otherwise, the objection is deemed waived. (Citations omitted and emphasis ours)

Similarly, in Villarin v. People, the Court stressed that the absence of a proper preliminary investigation must be timely raised. The accused is deemed to have waived his right to a preliminary investigation by entering his plea and actively participating in the trial without raising the lack of a preliminary investigation. Thus:

Moreover, the absence of a proper preliminary investigation must be timely raised and must not have been waived. This is to allow the trial court to hold the case in abeyance and conduct its own investigation or require the prosecutor to hold a reinvestigation, which, necessarily “involves a re-examination and re-evaluation of the evidence already submitted by the complainant and the accused, as well as the initial finding of probable cause which led to the filing of the Informations after the requisite preliminary investigation.”

Here, it is conceded that Villarin raised the issue of lack of a preliminary investigation in his Motion for Reinvestigation. However, when the Ombudsman denied the motion, he never raised this issue again. He accepted the Ombudsman’s verdict, entered a plea of not guilty during his arraignment and actively participated in the trial on the merits by attending the scheduled hearings, conducting cross-examinations and testifying on his own behalf. It was only after the trial court rendered judgment against him that he once again assailed the conduct of the preliminary investigation in the Motion for Reconsideration. Whatever argument Villarin may have regarding the alleged absence of a preliminary investigation has therefore been mooted. By entering his plea, and actively participating in the trial, he is deemed to have waived his right to preliminary investigation. (Citations omitted and emphases ours)

It is undisputed that, at the time of his arraignment, Roallos did not raise any objection to the supposed illegality of his arrest and the lack of a proper preliminary investigation. Indeed, he actively participated in the proceedings before the RTC. Thus, he is deemed to have waived any perceived irregularity in his arrest and has effectively submitted himself to the jurisdiction of the RTC. He is likewise deemed to have waived his right to preliminary investigation.

 

Third, Roallos failed to substantiate his claim that his right to speedy trial was violated. The right to speedy trial is violated only when the proceedings are attended by vexatious, capricious and oppressive delays. In the determination of whether said right has been violated, particular regard must be taken of the facts and circumstances peculiar to each case. The conduct of both the prosecution and defendant, the length of the delay, the reasons for such delay, the assertion or failure to assert such right by the accused, and the prejudice caused by the delay are the factors to consider and balance. In order for the government to sustain its right to try the accused despite a delay, it must show two things: first, that the accused suffered no serious prejudice beyond that which ensued from the ordinary and inevitable delay; and second, that there was no more delay that is reasonably attributable to the ordinary processes of justice.

 

As aptly ruled by the CA, Roallos failed to show that the proceedings below were attended by vexatious, capricious, and oppressive delays. The postponements sought for by the prosecution did not, in any way, seriously prejudice Roallos. If at all, the delay in the proceedings below is only attributable to the ordinary processes of justice.

 

Lastly, that neither AAA nor BBB signed the Information filed against Roallos would not render the charge against the latter defective; it does not signify that they did not conform to the filing of the Information against Roallos. AAA and BBB vigorously pursued the indictment against Roallos. Likewise, contrary to Roallos’ claim, AAA executed a complaint-affidavit for the indictment of Roallos.[26] The foregoing circumstances clearly indicate the conformity of both AAA and BBB to the charge against Roallos.

 

For acts of lasciviousness performed on a child under Section 5(b), Article III of R.A. No. 7610, the penalty prescribed is reclusion temporal in its medium period to reclusion perpetua. Notwithstanding that R.A. No. 7610 is a special law, Roallos may enjoy the benefits of the Indeterminate Sentence Law. Applying the Indeterminate Sentence Law, Roallos shall be entitled to a minimum term to be taken within the range of the penalty next lower to that prescribed by R.A. No. 7610. The penalty next lower in degree is prision mayor medium to reclusion temporal minimum, the range of which is from eight (8) years and one (1) day to fourteen (14) years and eight (8) months. On the other hand, the maximum term of the penalty should be taken from the penalty prescribed under Section 5(b), Article III of R.A. No. 7610, which is reclusion temporal in its medium period to reclusion perpetua, the range of which is from fourteen (14) years, eight (8) months and one (1) day to reclusion perpetua. The minimum, medium and maximum term of the same is as follows: minimum – fourteen (14) years, eight (8) months and one (1) day to seventeen (17) years and four (4) months; medium – seventeen (17) years, four (4) months and one (1) day to twenty (20) years; and maximum – reclusion perpetua.[27]

 

Considering that there are neither aggravating nor mitigating circumstances extant in this case, both the RTC and the CA correctly imposed on Roallos the indeterminate penalty of eight (8) years and one (1) day of prision mayor medium as the minimum term to seventeen (17) years, four (4) months and one (1) day of reclusion temporal as the maximum term. The Court likewise upholds the fine imposed by the lower courts in the amount of P15,000.00.

 

Nevertheless, the Court hereby modifies the amount of moral damages and civil indemnity awarded by the CA. The RTC directed Roallos to pay AAA moral damages in the amount of P20,000.00. The CA increased the amount of moral damages awarded by the RTC to P50,000.00 and imposed an additional award for civil indemnity in the amount of P50,000.00. In line with recent jurisprudence, the Court deems it proper to reduce the award of moral damages from P50,000.00 to P15,000.00, as well as the award of civil indemnity from P50,000.00 to P20,000.00.

 

In addition, and in conformity with current policy, the Court imposes interest on all monetary awards for damages at the rate of six percent (6%) per annum from the date of finality of this Resolution until fully paid.”

 

 

FIRST DIVISION, G.R. No. 198389, December 11, 2013, VIVENCIO ROALLOS Y TRILLANES, PETITIONER, VS. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, RESPONDENT.

 

http://thelawyerspost.net/republic-act-7610-sweetheart-defense/

 

 

“For purposes of sexual intercourse and lascivious conduct in child abuse cases under RA 7610, the sweetheart defense is unacceptable. A child exploited in prostitution or subjected to other sexual abuse cannot validly give consent to sexual intercourse with another person.”

 

Christian, a dancer, met AAA, his choreographer’s niece, in her uncle’s place. When she stayed in her uncle’s place, she and Christian became sweethearts. He succeeded in convincing her to have repeated sexual intercourse because of his promise to marry and an assurance that they will use the withdrawal method so she will not get pregnant. She, however, became pregnant, and Christian, shocked with the development, proposed that she had an abortion. She acceded to the request but failed. hence a child was born out of the relationship. When confronted by Christian’s mother, he promised to marry AAA. The mother later filed a case for violation of Section 10(a) of Republic Act 7610.

 

In his defense, Christian contended that they were sweethearts; AAA was not a virgin anymore when they had sexual intercourse; eventually they broke up because of the intervention of AAA’s mother. Christian was convicted by the Regional Trial Court for violation of Section 10(a) of Republic Act 7610.The issue presented before the Supreme Court was whether or not Christian may be convicted for violation of Republic Act 7610. He argues that his promise to marry and use of the withdrawal method are not inducement or persuasion as to make the case within the purview of the offense. The phrase “due to the coercion or influence of any adult” is the relevant phrase for interpretation. According to him, it must be accompanied by some form of coercion or intimidation to constitute child abuse.

 

The Supreme Court:

 

“Section 5(b), Article III of RA 7610 pertinently reads:

 

SEC. 5. Child Prostitution and Other Sexual Abuse. – Children, whether male or female, who for money, profit, or any other consideration or due to the coercion or influence of any adult, syndicate or group, indulge in sexual intercourse or lascivious conduct, are deemed to be children exploited in prostitution and other sexual abuse.

 

The penalty of reclusion temporal in its medium period to reclusion perpetua shall be imposed upon the following: x x x x

 

(b) Those who commit the act of sexual intercourse or lascivious conduct with a child exploited in prostitution or subject to other sexual abuse; Provided, That when the victim is under twelve (12) years of age, the perpetrators shall be prosecuted under Article 335, paragraph 3 for rape and Article 336 of Act No. 3815, as amended, the Revised Penal Code, for rape or lascivious conduct, as the case may be; Provided, That the penalty for lascivious conduct when the victim is under twelve (12) years of age shall be reclusion temporal in its medium period x x x x (Emphasis and underscoring supplied)

 

As determined in the case of Olivarez v. CA (Olivarez), the elements of the foregoing offense are the following:

 

(a) The accused commits the act of sexual intercourse or lascivious conduct;

 

(b) The said act is performed with a child exploited in prostitution or subjected to other sexual abuse; and

 

© The child, whether male or female, is below 18 years of age.

 

In this case, the existence of the first and third elements remains undisputed. Records disclose that Caballo had succeeded in repeatedly having sexual intercourse with AAA who, during all those instances, was still a minor. Thus, the only bone of contention lies in the presence of the second element. On this note, the defense submits that AAA could not be considered as a “child exploited in prostitution and other sexual abuse” since the incidents to do not point to any form of “coercion” or “influence” on Caballo’s part.”

 

x x x

 

“As it is presently worded, Section 5, Article III of RA 7610 provides that when a child indulges in sexual intercourse or any lascivious conduct due to the coercion or influence of any adult, the child is deemed to be a “child exploited in prostitution and other sexual abuse.” In this manner, the law is able to act as an effective deterrent to quell all forms of abuse, neglect, cruelty, exploitation and discrimination against children, prejudicial as they are to their development.

 

In this relation, case law further clarifies that sexual intercourse or lascivious conduct under the coercion or influence of any adult exists when there is some form of compulsion equivalent to intimidation which subdues the free exercise of the offended party’s free will. Corollary thereto, Section 2(g) of the Rules on Child Abuse Cases conveys that sexual abuse involves the element of influence which manifests in a variety of forms. It is defined as:

 

The employment, use, persuasion, inducement, enticement or coercion of a child to engage in or assist another person to engage in, sexual intercourse or lascivious conduct or the molestation, prostitution, or incest with children.

 

To note, the term “influence” means the “improper use of power or trust in any way that deprives a person of free will and substitutes another’s objective.” Meanwhile, “coercion” is the “improper use of x x x power to compel another to submit to the wishes of one who wields it.”

 

In view of the foregoing, the Court observes that Caballo’s actuations may be classified as “coercion” and “influence” within the purview of Section 5, Article III of RA 7610:

 

First, the most crucial element is AAA’s minority. It is undisputed that AAA was only 17 years old at the time of the commission of the crime and is hence, considered a child under the law.31 In this respect, AAA was not capable of fully understanding or knowing the import of her actions and in consequence, remained vulnerable to the cajolery and deception of adults, as in this case.

 

Based on this premise, jurisprudence settles that consent is immaterial in cases involving a violation of Section 5, Article III of RA 7610; as such, the argument that AAA and Caballo were sweethearts remains irrelevant. The Malto ruling is largely instructive on this point:

 

For purposes of sexual intercourse and lascivious conduct in child abuse cases under RA 7610, the sweetheart defense is unacceptable. A child exploited in prostitution or subjected to other sexual abuse cannot validly give consent to sexual intercourse with another person.

 

The language of the law is clear: it seeks to punish “[t]hose who commit the act of sexual intercourse or lascivious conduct with a child exploited in prostitution or subjected to other sexual abuse.”

 

Unlike rape, therefore, consent is immaterial in cases involving violation of Section 5, Article III of RA 7610. The mere act of having sexual intercourse or committing lascivious conduct with a child who is exploited in prostitution or subjected to sexual abuse constitutes the offense. It is a malum prohibitum, an evil that is proscribed.

 

A child cannot give consent to a contract under our civil laws. This is on the rationale that she can easily be the victim of fraud as she is not capable of fully understanding or knowing the nature or import of her actions. The State, as parens patriae, is under the obligation to minimize the risk of harm to those who, because of their minority, are as yet unable to take care of themselves fully. Those of tender years deserve its protection.

 

The harm which results from a child’s bad decision in a sexual encounter may be infinitely more damaging to her than a bad business deal. Thus, the law should protect her from the harmful consequences of her attempts at adult sexual behavior. For this reason, a child should not be deemed to have validly consented to adult sexual activity and to surrender herself in the act of ultimate physical intimacy under a law which seeks to afford her special protection against abuse, exploitation and discrimination. (Otherwise, sexual predators like petitioner will be justified, or even unwittingly tempted by the law, to view her as fair game and vulnerable prey.) In other words, a child is presumed by law to be incapable of giving rational consent to any lascivious act or sexual intercourse. x x x x (Emphasis and underscoring supplied; citations omitted)

 

Second, coupled with AAA’s minority is Caballo’s seniority. Records indicate that Caballo was 23 years old at the time of the commission of the offense and therefore, 6 years older than AAA, more or less. The age disparity between an adult and a minor placed Caballo in a stronger position over AAA so as to enable him to force his will upon the latter.

 

Third, Caballo’s actions effectively constitute overt acts of coercion and influence. Records reveal that Caballo repeatedly assured AAA of his love for her, and even, promised to marry her. In addition, he also guaranteed that she would not get pregnant since he would be using the “withdrawal method” for safety. Irrefragably, these were meant to influence AAA to set aside her reservations and eventually give into having sex with him, with which he succeeded.

 

Fourth, at least, with respect to the parties’ first sexual encounter, it is observed that the brash and unexpected manner in which Caballo pursued AAA to her room and pressed on her to have sex with him, effectively placed her in, to a certain extent, a position of duress.. An important factor is that AAA refused Caballo’s incipient advances and in fact, asked him to leave. However, AAA eventually yielded. Thus, it stands to reason that she was put in a situation deprived bf the benefit of clear thought and choice. In any case, the Court observes’ that any other choice would, nonetheless, remain tarnished due to AAA ‘s minority as above-discussed.

 

Hence, considering that Caballo’s acts constitute “coercion” and “influence” within the context of the law, and that AAA indulged in sexual intercourse and/or lascivious conduct with Caballo due to the same, she is deemed as a “child exploited in prostitution and other sexual abuse”; as such, the second element of the subject offense exists.

 

In fine, finding all elements to be present, the Court hereby sustains Caballo’s conviction for violation of Section 5(b), Article III of RA 7610.”

 

G.R. No. 198732, June 10, 2013, CHRISTIAN CABALLO, PETITIONER, VS. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES,

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 35
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

  • Raptor

    6

  • Tullioz

    5

  • smokey

    4

  • Davaoeno

    3

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

tl;dr   When Mrs was growing up, she and her sister were kept in line by fear of being beaten.  Out in the provinces, far from malacanang that's still the way it works.  Kids need discipline!  They

1. because the petitioner lost his reason and self-control, thereby diminishing the exercise of his will power.     Similar to the old common law defence of " irresistable impulse".   I dont think any

How could you possibly expect a link for an opinion?

Posted Images

Davaoeno

1. because the petitioner lost his reason and self-control, thereby diminishing the exercise of his will power.     Similar to the old common law defence of " irresistable impulse".   I dont think any Western court would buy this as a defence and would convict [ although I believe the court would use it in sentencing ].   Altho this father was found not guilty   the facts here are very specific ie a father learns that the thugs hurt his daughter and set her hair on fire so attacked the 12 year old , but only with a slap and a hit on the back.  The father was only sentenced to 10 days in prison.   . If you are a foreigner and you hit a kid for any reason I think this case shows you will be screwed !

 

2.    Even if they charge you with the wrong offence you are going down if you grope a minor [ here breast touching and a hand on the abdomen].   Sentence 8-17 years.  

 

3. If you have sex with an underage girl [ in this case 17 ], even if she wasnt a virgin, and even if it was consensual [ altho the consent was obtained by some slight pressure and by promises of marriage and not to cum in her - you are going down .  [ a child is presumed by law to be incapable of giving rational consent to any lascivious act or sexual intercourse ]

 

Moral of the stories - do not have sex with underage girls in any circumstances  and  always keep your hands to yourself !!     And never hit a kid in any circumstances. 

  • Like 5
Link to post
Share on other sites
woodchopper

in the event of charges being laid,,does the phils court use "precedents" of previous similar cases and subsequent findings?

 

i would imagine so!

 

these factors greatly influence a judge and his Heavy Workload!

 

i would not like to be a fair dinkum judge pouring over stuff constantly

Edited by woodchopper
Link to post
Share on other sites
cebulover2000

in the event of charges being laid,,does the phils court use "precedents" of previous similar cases and subsequent findings?

 

i would imagine so!

 

these factors greatly influence a judge and his Heavy Workload!

 

i would not like to be a fair dinkum judge pouring over stuff constantly

 

 

Looks like the wind could blow either way. Very interesting reading. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
woodchopper

Looks like the wind could blow either way. Very interesting reading. 

 having said that,,either lawyer is also,,in cases and countries i know,,entitled to quote and refer the judge to those precedents for the benefit or detriment of the accused

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

Moral of the stories - do not have sex with underage girls in any circumstances

 

No exceptions.

 

 

 

never hit a kid in any circumstances.

 

No exceptions...unless they really deserve it.

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
contraman

 

 

No exceptions...unless they really deserve it.

Does kicking a chair out from under them count ?  :yahoo:

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

tl;dr

 

When Mrs was growing up, she and her sister were kept in line by fear of being beaten.  Out in the provinces, far from malacanang that's still the way it works.  Kids need discipline!  They need to learn actions have consequences and you can't just do whatever the fick you like.  My father used to beat me with a stick and while it definitely hurt, it didn't do any real harm.

 

This modern idea that it's a terrible thing to hit a child under any circumstances is patently absurd.  Far more long term damage is done by not disciplining a child when necessary.  

  • Like 6
Link to post
Share on other sites
Davaoeno

 

 

This modern idea that it's a terrible thing to hit a child under any circumstances is patently absurd.

 

I was talking about foreigners and their actions  to foreigners [ Linc members]  .  I stand by what I said.   If you as a foreigner start hitting kids in the Philippines- yours or other peoples - you are just asking for trouble.  This thread is about legal issues- not parenting issues .   key words: " courts"  " Law"  

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
rainymike

What I find fascinating about these cases is that they do appear to be reasonable attempts to deal with child abuse and other conditions that are prejudicial to a child's development. Although the decisions lay out decent arguments, I'd agree with Davaoeno that there are some interesting differences from courts in the US. But it does seem to all boil down to abuse or doing something prejudicial to a child's development.

 

Brings up other questions though. Say you're chatting online with a girl who happens to be underaged. Say she initiates lascivious conversation. How might the law view a foreigner sending the girl money, setting up a meeting to see her, or participating in lascivious conversation? Now of course, the guys running the sex shop would probably be guilty, but how about the unwitting foreigner? Has the foreigner created or participated in creating conditions prejudicial to the child's development?

 

Say you are just giving a neighbor's girl a ride. Are there situations when the ride becomes criminal? If you take her to a short time motel - well that's pretty obvious. But taking the kid to school with your kids per the child's parent's request? Or babysitting at home? Taking her alone to the ferry or airport for transport to another island? Chatting with a young kid who just walks up to you on the street or at the mall?

 

Or say you're living out in the province and one of your neighbors is really pushing their 17 year old daughter on you. Well, you have parental permission. But does parental permission trump the law, or are the parents and you all guilty of child abuse?

 

Anyway, just some of the more interesting questions that came up in my mind. 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

Or say you're living out in the province and one of your neighbors is really pushing their 17 year old daughter on you. Well, you have parental permission. But does parental permission trump the law, or are the parents and you all guilty of child abuse?

 

 A 17-year-old girl was rescued by the police from the house of David Ray Carpenter, 67, in Barangay Odlot, after the minor was seen inside his house. Carpenter, a native of North Carolina, USA, was arrested by police along with the parents of the minor

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

That guy is going to be hard to beat when it comes to the stupidest foreigner of 2015 award. His excuse, in addition to being in love was, "He reasoned that his brother-in-law and his friends are all doing the same; finding local girls to live with". I guess the way he thinks, if they were all doing lines of coke off the bellies of 17 year old hookers every weekend that would be OK as well. Anyway, I hope after that excuse the police are looking into who these friends of his are since they are apparently living with minors as well.

 

Also, if you are making comments on a minor's Facebook page like  "you are a lovely wife honey, im so happy to have you in my life,you are as sweet as candy. i love you honey." that's not going to help you in court either. https://www.facebook.com/amandamei.ortega?fref=ts

Edited by Tullioz
Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

"He reasoned that his brother-in-law and his friends are all doing the same; finding local girls to live with"... I hope after that excuse the police are looking into who these friends of his are since they are apparently living with minors as well.

 

I'm going to make an educated guess that "brother-in-law and his friends" meant the girls brother, and his friends, and again assuming they are less than 10 years older than their girlfriends, making them not guilty of RA 7610, though likely guilty of another offense.

Link to post
Share on other sites

So basically because the courts don't enforce the letter of the law (most of the time, we think, probably) the law as written is A-OK. 

 

Nah. 

 

It's still a shitty law poorly written by people who were most likely most interested in presenting it as a way to loosen foreign purse strings. 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

This modern idea that it's a terrible thing to hit a child under any circumstances is patently absurd. Far more long term damage is done by not disciplining a child when necessary.

If you can't disciplines or solve a problem with kids without had to hit them, then it's possibly you that has a bigger problem than the kids have.

 

Children in homes full of books and educational games are less likely to get spanked, new research shows.

Recent studies have found that corporal punishment can cause significant antisocial behavioral, such as lying, cheating, and hitting, in children as they grow older.

 

“Allowing children to stretch their brains in that kind of way is allowing children to behave less anti-socially down the road,”
 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use, Privacy Policy and Guidelines. We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue..