People vs.

Larin > Section 5(b)

- UPLB Case
> failure of the defense to prove ill motive
sexual abuse - for money or profit, under 18,

Amployo vs People
> Intimidation need not necessarily be irresistible. It is sufficient that some
compulsion equivalent to intimidation annuls or subdues the free exercise of the will
of the offended party (as expounded by the court sec. 5(b)

Olivarez vs. CA
Elements of sexual abuse under Sec 5 R.A. 7610 in relation to Sec 32, Article 13
of IRR of 7610 defines lascivious conduct -- intentional touching, introdution of
any object into the gentalia, anus or mouth
- citing larin and amployo

Caballo vs people
> defense is that it could not be considered as "child exploited in prostitution and
other sexual abuses" since the incidents to do not point to any form of "coercion"
or "influence" --- court said it is untenable
RA 7610 - advance state policy
> as a minor, below 18 years old, they are deemed child under the law and
consent is immaterial
> can be easily a victim of fraud, that is why they are not allowed to give consent
on contracts