Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Personal Reviewer - 7610
Personal Reviewer - 7610
7610: AN ACT PROVIDING FOR STRONGER DETERRENCE AND (4) Threatening or using violence towards a child to engage him as a
SPECIAL PROTECTION AGAINST CHILD ABUSE, EXPLOITATION AND prostitute; or
DISCRIMINATION, AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES (5) Giving monetary consideration goods or other pecuniary benefit to a
child with intent to engage such child in prostitution.
June 17, 1992
Section 3. Definition of Terms. – (b) Those who commit the act of sexual intercourse of lascivious conduct
with a child exploited in prostitution or subject to other sexual abuse;
(a) "Children" refers to person below eighteen (18) years of age or those Provided that:
over but are unable to fully take care of themselves or protect themselves
from abuse, neglect, cruelty, exploitation or discrimination because of a when the victims is under twelve (12) years of age, the perpetrators
physical or mental disability or condition; shall be prosecuted under Article 335, paragraph 3, for rape and
Article 336 of Act No. 3815, as amended, the Revised Penal Code,
(b) "Child abuse" refers to the maltreatment, whether habitual or not, of the for rape or lascivious conduct, as the case may be
child which includes any of the following:
the penalty for lascivious conduct when the victim is under twelve
(1) Psychological and physical abuse, neglect, cruelty, sexual (12) years of age shall be reclusion temporal in its medium period;
abuse and emotional maltreatment; and
(2) Any act by deeds or words which debases, degrades or
demeans the intrinsic worth and dignity of a child as a human (c) Those who derive profit or advantage therefrom, whether as manager or
being; owner of the establishment where the prostitution takes place, or of the
(3) Unreasonable deprivation of his basic needs for survival, such sauna, disco, bar, resort, place of entertainment or establishment serving as
as food and shelter; or a cover or which engages in prostitution in addition to the activity for which
(4) Failure to immediately give medical treatment to an injured child the license has been issued to said establishment.
resulting in serious impairment of his growth and development or in
his permanent incapacity or death.
People v. Tulagan matrix
Section 5. Child Prostitution and Other Sexual Abuse.
Offended Party: Rape under Art. 266-A (1) (a,b,c) Sec. 5(1) of RA 7610
Children, whether male or female,
who for money, profit, or any other consideration or due to the
1. offender is a man 1. offender is a man
coercion or influence of any adult, syndicate or group,
indulge in sexual intercourse or lascivious conduct
Offending Party 2. Carnal knowledge of a woman 2. Indulges in sexual intercourse with a female
(a) Those who engage in or promote, facilitate or induce child prostitution child exploited in prostitution or other sexual
which include, but are not limited to, the following: abuse, who is 12 years old or below 18 or
above 18 under special circumstances;
3. Through force, threat or 3. Coercion or influence of any adult,
(1) Acting as a procurer of a child prostitute; intimidation: when the offended syndicate or group is employed against the
(2) Inducing a person to be a client of a child prostitute by means of party is deprived of reason or child to become a prostitute.
written or oral advertisements or other similar means; otherwise unconscious; and by
(3) Taking advantage of influence or relationship to procure a child as means of fraudulent machination or
prostitute; grave abuse of authority
looking for her boyfriend, the victim joined. However the appellant pulled the
victim to a room where a rapist was there and paid the appellant.
Under 12 years
12 years old or The accused was originally charged of rape being a co-principal but the SC
below 18, or 18 years old and modified the ruling arguing that the appellant cannot be held liable as co-
old or
18 under special above principal as her acts are not indispensable to the crime of rape.
demented
circumstances
Acts of
She was charged of violation of Sec. 5 of RA 7610.
Lasciviousness
committed against Article 336 in
Section 5(b) of
children relation to Section
R.A. No. 7610: Not applicable People vs. Larin, 297 SCRA 309, G.R. No. 128777, October 07, 1998
exploited in 5(b) of R.A. No.
prostitution or 7610: Victim: 14 y/o female – practicing swimming
other sexual Accused: Swimming coach
abuse
Sexual Assault After the practice swim of the victim, she went to the shower room when the
Lascivious
committed Article 266-A(2) of
Conduct under accused, serving as a public employee (coach in UP), followed her and
against children the RPC in
exploited in relation to Section
Section 5(b) of
Not applicable instructed to unwrapped her towel and was saying he will just shave the
R.A. No. pubic hair. However the accused performed cunningilus.
prostitution or 5(b) of R.A. No.
7610:
other sexual 7610:
abuse The appellant employed moral and psychological coercion. He would
Sexual intimidate by attacking her self-esteem, after which he would suffer himself
Intercourse as someone who could help solve her inadequacies. The victim has post
Sexual Abuse
committed against traumatic stress.
Rape under under
children
Article 266- Section 5(b) of Not applicable
exploited in
A(1) of the RPC R.A. No. Psychological coercion It involves the use of influence of a more
prostitution or
7610: powerful person who is in position of power. It can be a parent or an adult
other sexual
abuse but basically that person has to have had some kind of continued
Rape under Rape under relationship with the child. It cannot happen that you just meet the child or
Article 266- Article 266-A(1) Rape under the other person or to submit right away to the person because in
Rape by carnal
knowledge
A(1) in relation to in relation to Art. Article 266- psychological coercion, a relationship is built up with the victim and to my
Art. 266-B of the 266-B of A(1) of the RPC knowledge in this particular case there was such, if I may refer to this case,
RPC: the RPC: there was such a relationship between [C]arla and her coach in swimming.
Sexual Assault Generally in psychological coercion there is a form of trust. That is what I
Lascivious Sexual Assault
under Article 266-
A(2) of the RPC in
Conduct under under mean by relation. A trust in relation is built up and it is understandable that
Rape by Sexual Section 5(b) of Article 266-A(2) of this happened in this particular case because you know it was a skill that
relation to Section
Assault R.A. No. the was being taught and at the same time, because a teacher cannot be
5(b) of R.A. No.
7610: RPC: prision effective unless there [is] some kind of rapport.
7610:
mayor
Amployo vs. People, 457 SCRA 282, G.R. No. 157718, April 26, 2005
People vs. Dulay, 681 SCRA 638, G.R. No. 193854 September 24, 2012 Victim: 8 y/o
Victim: 12years old female Accused: adult, abused the victim by touching her breast.
Accused: Female Adult, who was introduced to the victim as a good person
by the victim’s sister. When the appellant asked the victim to come to her in The accused was charged of violating Sec. 5 (b) of RA 7610:
1. The accused commits the act of sexual intercourse or lascivious consented to have a sexual intercourse with him. Later on, she learned that
conduct the accused had affairs with other students from other schools.
2. The said act is performed with a child exploited in prostitution or
subjected to other sexual abuse Elements of Sec. 5
3. The child, whether female or male, is below 18 years old. 1. Pertains to the act of accused
All elements are present. Sec. 5 of 7610 does not merely cover a situation of 2. Refers to the state or condition of the party
a child being abused for profit but also engaged in lascivious conduct 3. Minority of the offended party
through coercion or intimidation. Intimidation need not be irresistible. All elements are present.
Lewd- something indecent or obscene; intended to excite crude sexual Petitioner can only be held liable for violation of Sec5(b) not rape.
desire. Sweetheart defense in RA 7610 is not acceptable.
Olivarez vs. Court of Appeals, 465 SCRA 465, G.R. No. 163866, July People vs. Chingh, 645 SCRA 573, G.R. No. 178323, March 16, 2011
29, 2005 Victim: 10 y/o
Victim: 16 y/o female
Accused: employer of sampaguita business The accused raped the victim in the jeepney by inserting his finger into her
private part and afterwards his penis.
The victim and her brothers were working for the accused where their job is
to make sampaguita garlands. The accused called her inside and there The accused was then charged of Rape and Sexual Assault.
kissed her and held her breast. Penalty is RA7610.
Section 10. Other Acts of Neglect, Abuse, Cruelty or Exploitation and For purposes of this Act, the penalty for the commission of acts punishable
Other Conditions Prejudicial to the Child's Development. – under Articles 248, 249, 262, paragraph 2, and 263, paragraph 1 of Act No.
3815, as amended, the Revised Penal Code, for the crimes of murder,
(a) Any person who shall commit any other acts of child abuse, cruelty or homicide, other intentional mutilation, and serious physical injuries,
exploitation or to be responsible for other conditions prejudicial to the child's respectively, shall be reclusion perpetua when the victim is under twelve (12)
development including those covered by Article 59 of Presidential Decree years of age. The penalty for the commission of acts punishable under
No. 603, as amended, but not covered by the Revised Penal Code, as Article 337, 339, 340 and 341 of Act No. 3815, as amended, the Revised
amended, shall suffer the penalty of prision mayor in its minimum period. Penal Code, for the crimes of qualified seduction, acts of lasciviousness with
the consent of the offended party, corruption of minors, and white slave
(b) Any person who shall keep or have in his company a minor, twelve (12) trade, respectively, shall be one (1) degree higher than that imposed by law
years or under or who in ten (10) years or more his junior in any public or when the victim is under twelve (12) years age.
private place, hotel, motel, beer joint, discotheque, cabaret, pension house,
sauna or massage parlor, beach and/or other tourist resort or similar places The victim of the acts committed under this section shall be entrusted to the
shall suffer the penalty of prision mayor in its maximum period and a fine of care of the Department of Social Welfare and Development
not less than Fifty thousand pesos (P50,000): Provided, That this provision
shall not apply to any person who is related within the fourth degree of De Guzman vs. Perez, 496 SCRA 474, G.R. No. 156013, July 25, 2006
consanguinity or affinity or any bond recognized by law, local custom and Petitioner De Guzman happened to be the father who didn’t provide regular
tradition or acts in the performance of a social, moral or legal duty. financial support to his son from his singlehood. The mother of the child
charged him of neglect of child.
(c) Any person who shall induce, deliver or offer a minor to any one
prohibited by this Act to keep or have in his company a minor as provided in Petitioner acknowledged Robby as his son. He has not denied that he never
the preceding paragraph shall suffer the penalty of prision mayor in its contributed for his education except in two instances (1992 and 1993). He
medium period and a fine of not less than Forty thousand pesos (P40,000); admitted that the boy's education was being financed by private respondent
Provided, however, That should the perpetrator be an ascendant, stepparent and her relatives. He stated under oath that the last time he sent material
or guardian of the minor, the penalty to be imposed shall be prision mayor in support to his son was in 1994 when he gave P7,000 for the latter's
its maximum period, a fine of not less than Fifty thousand pesos (P50,000), hospitalization and medical expenses.
and the loss of parental authority over the minor. There is a prima facie showing from the evidence that petitioner is in fact
financially capable of supporting Robby's education. The notarized GIS of
(d) Any person, owner, manager or one entrusted with the operation of any the RNCD Development Corporation indicates that petitioner owns P750,000
public or private place of accommodation, whether for occupancy, food, worth of paid-up shares in the company.
drink or otherwise, including residential places, who allows any person to Petitioner's assertion that the GIS is not evidence of his financial capability
take along with him to such place or places any minor herein described shall (since the shares are allegedly owned by his father) is of no moment. The
be imposed a penalty of prision mayor in its medium period and a fine of not claim is factual and evidentiary, and therefore a defense which should be
less than Fifty thousand pesos (P50,000), and the loss of the license to interposed during the trial.
operate such a place or establishment.
The argument that criminal liability for neglect of child under Article 59(4) of exploitation have resulted in the prejudice of the child because an act
PD 603 attaches only if both parents are guilty of neglecting the child's prejudicial to the development of the child is different from the former acts.
education does not hold water. The law is clear. The crime may be
committed by any parent. Liability for the crime does not depend on whether Moreover, it is a rule in statutory construction that the word "or" is a
the other parent is also guilty of neglect. The law intends to punish the disjunctive term signifying dissociation and independence of one thing from
neglect of any parent, which neglect corresponds to the failure to give the other things enumerated. It should, as a rule, be construed in the sense
child the education which it ordinarily implies. Hence, the use of "or" in Section 10(a) of Republic
which the family's station in life and financial condition permit. The Act No. 7610 before the phrase "be responsible for other conditions
irresponsible parent cannot exculpate himself from the consequences of his prejudicial to the child's development" supposes that there are four
neglect by invoking the other parent's faithful compliance with his or her own punishable acts therein. First, the act of child abuse; second, child cruelty;
parental duties. third, child exploitation; and fourth, being responsible for conditions
prejudicial to the child's development. The fourth penalized act cannot be
However, while petitioner can be indicted for violation of Article 59(4) of interpreted, as petitioner suggests, as a qualifying condition for the three
PD 603, the charge against him cannot be made in relation to Section other acts, because an analysis of the entire context of the questioned
10(a) of RA 7610 provision does not warrant such construal.
(a) Any person who shall commit any other acts of child abuse, cruelty or It bears stressing that the mere keeping or having in a man's companion a
exploitation or be responsible for other conditions prejudicial to the child's minor, twelve (12) years or under or who is ten (10) years or more his junior
development including those covered by Article 59 of PD No. 603, as in any public or private place already constitutes child abuse under Section
amended, but not covered by the Revised Penal Code, as amended, shall 10(b) of the same Act. Under such rationale, an unwanted embrace on a
suffer the penalty of prision mayor in its minimum period minor would all the more constitute child abuse.
The law expressly penalizes any person who commits other acts of neglect, Guilty of violating Section
child abuse, cruelty or exploitation or be responsible for other conditions 10(a), Article VI of Republic Act No. 7610
prejudicial to the child's development including those covered by Article 59 of
PD 603 "but not covered by the Revised Penal Code."
The "neglect of child" punished under Article 59(4) of PD 603 is also a crime Bongalon vs, People, 694 SCRA 12, G.R. No. 169533, March 20, 2013
(known as "indifference of parents") penalized under the second paragraph Jayson Dela Cruz (Jayson) and Roldan, his older brother, both minors,
of Article 277 of the Revised Penal Code. Hence, it is excluded from the joined the evening procession for the Santo Niño at Oro Site in Legazpi City;
coverage of RA 7610. that when the procession passed in front of the petitioner’s house, the latter’s
daughter Mary Ann Rose, also a minor, threw stones at Jayson and called
him “sissy”; that the petitioner confronted Jayson and Roldan and called
73. Araneta vs. People, 556 SCRA 323, G.R. No. 174205, June 27, 2008 them names like “strangers” and “animals”; that the petitioner struck Jayson
provision punishes not only those enumerated under Article 59 of at the back with his hand, and slapped Jayson on the face; that the petitioner
Presidential Decree No. 603, but also four distinct acts, i.e., then went to the brothers’ house and challenged Rolando dela Cruz, their
(a) child abuse, (b) child cruelty, (c) child exploitation and (d) being father, to a fight, but Rolando did not come out of the house to take on the
responsible for conditions prejudicial to the child's development. petitioner; that Rolando later brought Jayson to the Legazpi City Police
Station and reported the incident
The Rules and Regulations of the questioned statute distinctly and
separately defined child abuse, cruelty and exploitation just to show that Laying of hands on Jayson to have been done at the spur of the moment
these three acts are different from one another and from the act prejudicial to and in anger, indicative of his being then overwhelmed by his fatherly
the child's development. Contrary to petitioner's assertion, an accused can concern for
be prosecuted and be convicted under Section 10(a), Article VI of Republic the personal safety of his own minor daughters who had just suffered harm
Act No. 7610 if he commits any of the four acts therein. The prosecution at the hands of Jayson and Roldan. With the loss of his self-control, he
need not prove that the acts of child abuse, child cruelty and child 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.
Guilty SLIGHT PHYSICAL INJURIES
Rosaldes vs. People, 737 SCRA 592, G.R. No. 173988, October 08,
2014
7 y/o was hurriedly entering his classroom when he accidentally bumped the
knee of his teacher, petitioner Felina Rosaldes, who was then asleep on a
bamboo sofa, Roused from sleep, petitioner asked Michael Ryan to
apologize to her. When Michael did not obey but instead proceeded to his
Seat, petitioner went to Michael and pinched him on his thigh. Then, she
held him up by his armpits and pushed him to the floor. As he fell, Michael
Ryan's body hit a desk. As a result, he lost consciousness.
The petitioner contends that she did not deliberately inflict the physical
injuries
suffered by Michael Ryan to maltreat or malign him in a manner that would
debase, demean or degrade his dignity. She characterizes her maltreatment
as an act of discipline that she as a schoolteacher could reasonably do
towards the development of the child. She insists that her act further came
under the doctrine of in loco parentis.
Notes:
Age or physical inability needs proof such as forensic or medical
certificate.
In rape, consent is material, while in RA 7610, consent is
immaterial.