CABALLO VS PEOPLE

FACTS:
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.

ISSUE:
The core of the present controversy revolves around the interpretation of the phrase “due to the coercion or
influence of any adult” which would thereby classify the victim as a “child exploited in prostitution and other
sexual abuse” as found in Section 5, Article III of RA 7610 and whether or not Christian may be
convicted for violation of Republic Act 7610.

HELD:
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 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. 28 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
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:
FirstlyAAA was only 17 years old at the time of the commission of the crime and is hence, considered a
child under the law.
Second, coupled with AAA’s minority is Caballo’s seniority. 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 tor her, and even, promised to marry her
Fourth, at ieast, 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 h~r in, to a certain extent, a position of duress
In fine, finding all elements to be present, the Court hereby sustains Caballo's conviction for violation of
Section 5(b), Article III ofRA 7610.
PEOPLE. V. OPTANA
GR 133922; Feb.12,2001

FACTS:

Upon a sworn complaint filed by Maria Rizalina Onciano on November 28, 1995, four (4)
Informations for violation of Section 5 of Republic Act No. 7610, or known as the Special
Protection of Children Against Child Abuse and four (4) Informations for Rape were filed against
herein accused-appellant Deolito Optana committed as follows:
That on or about and during the month of October, 1993 at Sitio Daan Naugsol, Brgy. Mangan
Vaca, in the Municipality of Subic, Pronvice (sic) of Zambales, Philippines and within the
jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the said accused with lewd design, and by means of
intimidation, coercion, influence and other consideration, did then and there willfully, unlawfully
and feloniously have sexual intercourse with his stepdaughter one Rizalina Onsiano, a minor of 11
years old and ten (10) months, to the damage and prejudice of said Rizalina Onsiano.

ISSUE:
Whether THE COURT A QUO OVERLOOKED, MISUNDERSTOOD, MISAPPRECIATED
AND MISINTERPRETED MATERIAL FACTS OF IMPORTANCE AND SUBSTANCE
WHICH IF CONSIDERED AND GIVEN WEIGHT AND PROBATIVE VALUE WILL TILT
THE SCALE OF LADY JUSTICE IN FAVOR OF ACQUITTAL
HELD:

The SC affirms the decision of the trial court convicting the accused for one incident of rape, sentencing him to
reclusion perpetua and one charge violating RA7610, sentencing him to suffer 8yrs and 1 day of prison mayor as
minimum to 17 yrs. and 4mos of reclusion temporal as maximum. The other information failed to be proven
beyond reasonable doubt. Likewise, charging the accused with two different offenses for the same act committed
on the same date against the same victim is erroneous and illegal except where the law itself so allows. This is
not allowed by RA7610. It specifically provides that in instances where the victim is under 12, the
case should fall under art. 335 of the RPC, thus only cases where the victim is over 12 but under 18 can fall under
this law. In the case at bar, where the accused was charged for several occasions of rape and abuse the
conviction or acquittal on the information was based on the age of the child, the concept of non-multiplicity of
suits, and the evidence presented. Thus, only one rape case prospered (incident when the child was below 12)
and one violation of RA7610 (when the child was above 12 but below 18).