G.R. No. 198732 - CHRISTIAN CABALLO, VS. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES.D E C I S I O N - Supreme Court E-Library

Ruling

Accordingly, it sentenced Caballo to suffer imprisonment for an indeterminate period ranging from prision correccional , in its maximum period of four (4) years, two (2) months and one (1) day, as minimum, to prision mayor in its minimum period of six (6) years, eight (8) months and one (1) day, as maximum. It also ordered Caballo to pay AAA moral damages in the amount of P50,000.00. [14] Aggrieved, Caballo elevated the case to the CA. The CAs Ruling In a Decision dated January 28, 2011, [15] the CA dismissed the appeal and affirmed with modification the RTCs ruling, finding Caballo guilty of violating Section 5(b), Article III of RA 7610. It ruled that while the Amended Information denominated the crime charged as violation of Section 10(a), Article VI of RA 7610, the statements in its body actually support a charge of violation of Section 5(b), Article III of RA 7610. [16] On the merits of the case, it found that the evidence adduced by the prosecution clearly showed that Caballo persuaded, induced and enticed AAA, then a minor, to have carnal knowledge with him. Towards this end, Caballo repeatedly assured AAA of his love and even went on to promise marriage to her. He also assured AAA that she would not get pregnant because he would be using the "withdrawal method." Thus, it was upon these repeated coaxing and assuring words that AAA succumbed to Caballos evil desires which deflowered and got her pregnant. On this score, it observed that consent is immaterial in child abuse cases involving sexual intercourse and lascivious conduct and therefore, the sweetheart defense remains unacceptable. [17] It also found basis to sustain the award of moral damages. [18] Caballo filed a motion for reconsideration which was, however, denied on September 26, 2011. [19] Hence, the instant petition. The 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. Consequently, the interpretation which the Court accords herein would determine whether or not the CA erred in finding Caballo guilty of violating paragraph (b) of the same proviso. In his petition, Caballo essentially argues that his promise to marry or his use of the "withdrawal method" should not be considered as "persuasion" or "inducement" sufficient to convict him for the aforementioned offense, asserting that these should be coupled with some form of coercion or intimidation to constitute child abuse. He further alleges that he and AAA were sweethearts which thus, made the sexual intercourse consensual. In its Comment, [20] respondent advances the argument that there was "sexual abuse" within the purview of RA 7610 as well as the Rules on Child Abuse Cases since it was only upon Caballos repeated assurances and persuasion that AAA gave in to his worldly desires. Likew