Caballo v. People
GR No. 198732
June 10, 2013
Facts:
Christian Caballo, then 23 years old, met AAA, who was then 17 years old. AAA’s uncle was a choreographer, and Caballo was one of the dancers. AAA was a sophomore college student at the University of San Carlos, residing at a boarding house in Cebu City. On January 17, 1998, Caballo went to Cebu to attend the Sinulog festival and visited AAA. They eventually became sweethearts. When AAA went hoem to Surigao City in March 1998, Caballo persuaded her to have sexual intercourse with him. He had promised to marry her and assured her that she would not get pregnant because he would be using the withdrawal method. The sexual encounters happened several times more until AAA became pregnant and gave birth on March 8, 1999.
Caballo was charged for violation of Section 10(a), Article VI of RA 7610 in relation to Section 2 of the Rules on Child Abuse Cases. The RTC convicted him of the charge, while the appellate court affirmed the RTC’s decision with modification that it was Section 5(b), Article III of RA 7610 that was violated. Even though Section 10(a) was in the designation, it was Section 5(b) that the body supports.
Caballo contends that he should not be convicted because he did not coerce AAA to have sex with him as it was consensual.
Issue:
Whether Caballo coerced AAA to have sexual intercourse with him.
Ruling:
Yes. According to Section 5(b) of Article III of RA 7610,
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 inprostitution and other sexual abuse.
The penalty of reclusion temporal in its medium period to reclusion perpetua shall be imposed upon the following: . . . HICcSA
(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 . . .
RA 7610 was meant to advance the state policy affording special protection to children from all forms of abuse, neglect, cruelty, exploitation, amd discrimination and other conditions prejudicial to their development. The SC cited People v. Larin, which held that a child is deemed exploited in prostitution or subjected to other sexual abuse when the child indulges in sexual intercourse or lascivious conduct under coercion or influence of any adult, syndicate, or group.
Unlike rape, consent is immaterial in cases involving violation of Section 5, Article III of RA 7610. The Court also cited its ruling in Malto that says “for purpose of sexual intercourse and lascivious conduct in child abuse cases under RA 7610, the sweetheart defense is unacceptable.”
It's a Ping Thing 