People vs Jalosjos

GR. Nos. 132875-76

November 16, 2001

Facts: The victim of rape in this case is a minor below twelve (12) years of age.The victim was peddled for commercial
sex by her own guardian whom she treated as a foster father. Because the complainant was a willing victim, the acts
of rape were preceded by several acts of lasciviousness on distinctly separate occasions. The accused is also a most
unlikely rapist. He is a member of Congress. Inspite of his having been charged and convicted by the trial court for
statutory rape, he was re-elected to his congressional office. On December 16, 1996, two (2) informations for the
crime of statutory rape and twelve (12) for acts of lasciviousness, were filed against accused-appellant defined and
penalized under Article 336 of the Revised Penal Code, in relation to Section 5(b) of Republic Act No. 7610, also
known as the Child Abuse Law.

The victim, Rosilyn, grew up in a two-storey apartment in Pasay City under the care of SimplicioDelantar, whom
she treated as her own father. Simplicio was a fifty-six year old homosexual whose ostensible source of income was
selling longganiza and tocino and accepting boarders at his house.He, however, was also engaged in the skin trade
as a pimp.

Rosilyn ran away from home with the help of one of their boarders. They went to the Pasay City Police
where she executed a sworn statement against Simplicio Delantar. Rosilyn was thereafter taken to the custody of the
(DSWD).The (NBI) conducted an investigation, which eventually led to the filing of criminal charges against
accused-appellant He was also convicted on six (6) counts of acts of lasciviousness.

2) WHETHER OR NOT THE TRIAL COURT GRIEVOUSLY ERRED IN FINDING THAT RAPE WAS COMMITTED
AGAINST THE PRIVATE COMPLAINANT.

We explained that the phrase, "the mere touching of the external genitalia by the penis capable of consummating the
sexual act is sufficient to constitute carnal knowledge.The inevitable contact between accused-appellant's penis, and
at the very least, the labia of the pudendum of Rosilyn, was confirmed when she felt pain inside her vagina when the
"idiniin" part ofaccused-appellant's sex ritual was performed.

At the time of commission of the crimes complained of herein in 1996, statutory rape was penalized under Section 11
of R.A. 7659, which amended Article 335 of the Revised Penal Code, to wit:When and how rape is committed. —
Rape is committed by having carnal knowledge of a woman under any of the following circumstances: 1. By using
force or intimidation; 2. When the woman is deprived of reason or otherwise unconscious; and 3. When the woman is
under twelve years of age or is demented

Ampoloyo vs People

G.R. No. 157718

 April 26, 2005

Facts: Kristine Joy Mosquera was eight years old, a grade III student. One day she was walking to school (which was
just a short distance from her house) at around seven oclock in the morning when she was met by petitioner who
emerged from hiding from a nearby store. Petitioner and Kristine Joy were neighbors. Petitioner approached Kristine
Joy, touched her head, placed his hand on her shoulder where it then moved down to touch her breast several times.
Petitioner thereafter told Kristine Joy not to report to anybody what he did to her.

This was not the first time that the incident happened as petitioner had done this several times in the past, even when
Kristine Joy was still in Grade II. However, it was only during this last incident that Kristine Joy finally told somebody '
her grandmother, who immediately talked to Gnelida Mosquera, Kristine Joy's mother. Kristine Joy was seen by a
psychologist who reported that Kristine Joy was a victim of sexual abuse and was showing unusual behavior as a result
thereof.

The trial court rendered its decision, and finds the accused Alvin Amployo GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt of the
crime of Child Abuse defined under Section 5 (b) of Republic Act 7610 to which the CA affirmed. Hence this petition.

Issue: WHETHER THE ALLEGED ACT OF HEREIN PETITIONER CONSTITUTES ACTS OF LASCIVIOUSNESS AS
PENALIZED UNDER SEC (5) ARTICLE III OF RA NO. 7610

Ruling: The elements of sexual abuse under Section 5, Article III of Rep. Act No. 7610 that must be proven in addition
to the elements of acts of lasciviousness are the following:

(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.

The first element obtains. Section 32, Article XIII of the Implementing Rules and Regulations of Rep. Act No. 7610
defines lascivious conduct as follows:

(T)he intentional touching, either directly or through clothing, of the genitalia, anus, groin, breast, inner thigh, or
buttocks, or the introduction of any object into the genitalia, anus or mouth of any person, whether of the same or
opposite sex, with an intent to abuse, humiliate, harass, degrade or arouse or gratify the sexual desire of any person,
bestiality, masturbation, lascivious exhibition of the genitals or pubic area of a person.

Undoubtedly, based on the foregoing definition, petitioner's act of purposely touching Kristine Joy's breasts (sometimes
under her shirt) amounts to lascivious conduct.

People v. Caballo

G.R. No. 198732,

Jun 10, 2013

Facts: AAA, then 17 years old, met Caballo, then 23 years old, in her uncle’s place in Surigao City. During that time,
AAA was a sophomore college student at the University of San Carlos and resided at a boarding house in Cebu City.
On January 17, 1998, Caballo went to Cebu City to attend the Sinulog Festival and there, visited AAA. After spending
time together, they eventually became sweethearts.9 Sometime during the third week of March 1998, AAA went home
to Surigao City and stayed with her uncle. In the last week of March of the same year, Caballo persuaded AAA to have
sexual intercourse with him. This was followed by several more of the same in April 1998, in the first and second weeks
of May 1998, on August 31, 1998 and in November 1998, all of which happened in Surigao City, except the one in
August which occurred in Cebu.10 In June 1998, AAA became pregnant and later gave birth on March 8, 1999

During the trial, the prosecution asserted that Caballo was only able to induce AAA to lose her virginity due to promises
of marriage and his assurance that he would not get her pregnant due to the use of the "withdrawal method." Moreover,
it claimed that Caballo was shocked upon hearing the news of AAA’s pregnancy and consequently, advised her to have
an abortion. She heeded Caballo’s advice; however, her efforts were unsuccessful. Further, the prosecution averred
that when AAA’s mother confronted Caballo to find out what his plans were for AAA, he assured her that he would
marry her daughter.

Issue: WON Caballo is guilty of Section 5, Article III of RA 7610.

Held: A child is deemed exploited in prostitution and other sexual abuse when the child indulges in sexual intercourse or
lascivious conduct (a) for money, profit, or any other consideration; or (b) under coercion or influence of any adult,
syndicate or group. Consent is not material in cases under RA 7610. Moreover, the abuse is punishable whether
habitual or not. In the case, Caballo’sactuations of assuring AAA of his love and promise to marry may be classified
as ―coercion‖and ―influence’’within the purview of Section 5, Article III of RA 7610. These were meant to influence
AAA to set aside her reservations and eventually give into having sex with him, in which he succeeded. 7

MUSTAPHA DIMAKUTA Y MARUHOM v. PEOPLE

G.R. No. 206513

October 20, 2015

Facts: petitioner was indicted for Violation of Section 5 Paragraph (b), Article III of Republic Act (R.A.) No.
7610 or the Special Protection of Children Against Abuse, Exploitation and Discriminatory Act. The accused,
with lewd designs, commit a lascivious conduct upon the person of one AAA, who was then a sixteen (16)
year old minor, by then and there embracing her, touching her breast and private part against her will and
without her consent and the act complained of is prejudicial to the physical and psychological development
of the complainant.

RTC convicted petitioner.

Petitioner elevated the case to the (CA) arguing, among other things, that even assuming he committed the
acts imputed, still there is no evidence showing that the same were done without the victim's consent or
through force, duress,... intimidation or violence upon her.

OSG opined that petitioner should have been convicted only of Acts of Lasciviousness under Article 336 of the
Revised Penal Code (RPC) in view of the prosecution's failure to establish that the lascivious acts were attended by
force or coercion because the victim was asleep at the time the alleged acts were committed.

CA rendered a Decision adopting the recommendation of the OSG.

Issue: Whether he may avail of probation based on the review by the appellate court of the crime and/or penalty
imposed by the trial court.

Ruling: In this case, petitioner appealed the trial court's judgment of conviction before the CA alleging that it was error
on the part of the RTC to have found him guilty of violating Section 5(b), Article III of R.A. No. 7610. He argued that the
RTC should not have given much faith... and credence to the testimony of the victim because it was tainted with
inconsistencies. Moreover, he went on to assert that even assuming he committed the acts imputed on him, still there
was no evidence showing that the lascivious acts were committed without consent or through... force, duress,
intimidation or violence because the victim at that time was in deep slumber. It is apparent that petitioner anchored his
appeal on a claim of innocence and/or lack of sufficient evidence to support his conviction of the offense charged,
which is clearly... inconsistent with the tenor of the Probation Law that only qualified penitent offender are allowed to
apply for probation.