Christian Caballo, Petitioner, vs. People of The PHILIPPINES, Respondent

SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 698 2/9/20, 5:54 PM
G.R. No. 198732. June 10, 2013.*
CHRISTIAN CABALLO, petitioner, vs. PEOPLE OF THE

PHILIPPINES, respondent.
Criminal Law; Child Prostitution; Elements of.―Section 5(b),

Article III of RA 7610 pertinently reads: 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
_______________
** Per Special Order No. 1460 dated 29 May 2013.
*** Per Special Order No. 1461 dated 29 May 2013.
* SECOND DIVISION.
228
228 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED
Caballo vs. People
intercourse or lascivious conduct, are deemed to be children

exploited in prostitution and other sexual abuse. The penalty of
reclusion temporal in its medium period to reclusion perpetua shall
be imposed upon the following: x x x x (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
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/000001702957a91572d56f8d003600fb002c009e/p/AUA223/?username=Guest Page 1 of 22
under twelve (12) years of age shall be reclusion temporal in its

medium period x x x x (Emphasis and underscoring supplied) As
determined in the case of Olivarez v. CA (Olivarez), 465 SCRA 465
(2005), the elements of the foregoing offense are the following: (a)
The accused commits the act of sexual intercourse or lascivious
conduct; (b) The said act is performed with a child exploited in
prostitution or subjected to other sexual abuse; and (c) The child,
whether male or female, is below 18 years of age.
Same; Same; Child Abuse Law (R.A. No. 7610); Republic Act
No. 7610 was meant to advance the state policy of affording „special
protection to children from all forms of abuse, neglect, cruelty,
exploitation and discrimination and other conditions prejudicial to
their development‰ and in such regard, „provide sanctions for their
commission.‰―To put things in proper perspective, it must be
pointed out that RA 7610 was meant to advance the state policy of
affording „special protection to children from all forms of abuse,
neglect, cruelty, exploitation and discrimination and other
conditions prejudicial to their development‰ and in such
regard, „provide sanctions for their commission.‰ It also furthers the
„best interests of children‰ and as such, its provisions are guided by
this standard.
Same; Same; Same; Congress crafted Article III of R.A. No.
7610 in order to penalize child prostitution and other forms of sexual
abuse.―Driven by the foregoing considerations, Congress crafted
Article III of the same law in order to penalize child prostitution
and other forms of sexual abuse. Section 5 thereof provides a
definition of who is considered a „child exploited in prostitution and
other sexual abuse.‰ As illumined in Olivarez v. CA, 465 SCRA 465
(2005), citing People v. Larin, 297 SCRA 309 (1998), and Amployo v.
People, 457
229
VOL. 698, JUNE 10, 2013 229
Caballo vs. People
SCRA 282 (2005), the final version of the aforesaid provision was a
product of various deliberations to expand its original coverage to
cases where the minor may have been coerced or intimidated into
sexual intercourse or lascivious conduct, not necessarily for money
or profit, viz.: The second element, i.e., that the act is performed
with a child exploited in prostitution or subjected to other sexual
abuse, is likewise present. As succinctly explained in People v.
Larin, 297 SCRA 309 (1998): A child is deemed exploited in
prostitution or subjected to other sexual abuse, when the
child indulges in sexual intercourse or lascivious conduct (a)
for money, profit, or any other consideration; or (b) under the
coercion or influence of any adult, syndicate or group... It
must be noted that the law covers not only a situation in which a
child is abused for profit, but also one in which a child, through
coercion or intimidation, engages in lascivious conduct. We
reiterated this ruling in Amployo v. People, 457 SCRA 282 (2005): ...
As we observed in People v. Larin, Section 5 of Rep. Act No. 7610
does not merely cover a situation of a child being abused for profit,
but also one in which a child engages in any lascivious conduct
through coercion or intimidation...
Same; Same; Same; 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.‰―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 manner, the law is able to act as an effective deterrent to
quell all forms of abuse, neglect, cruelty, exploitation and
discrimination against children, prejudicial as they are to their
development. 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 partyÊs free will. 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. It is defined as: The employment, use,
persuasion, inducement, enticement or coercion of a child to engage
in or assist another person to engage in, sexual
230
Caballo vs. People
intercourse or lascivious conduct or the molestation, prostitution, or

incest with children.
Same; Same; Same; Jurisprudence settles that consent is
immaterial in cases involving a violation of Section 5, Article III of
RA 7610; Unlike rape, therefore, consent is immaterial in cases
involving violation of Section 5, Article III of RA
7610.―Jurisprudence settles that consent is immaterial in cases
involving a violation of Section 5, Article III of RA 7610; as such, the
argument that AAA and Caballo were sweethearts remains
irrelevant. The Malto ruling is largely instructive on this point: For
purposes of sexual intercourse and lascivious conduct in
child abuse cases under RA 7610, the sweetheart defense is
unacceptable. A child exploited in prostitution or subjected to other
sexual abuse cannot validly give consent to sexual intercourse with
another person. The language of the law is clear: it seeks to punish
„[t]hose who commit the act of sexual intercourse or lascivious
conduct with a child exploited in prostitution or subjected to other
sexual abuse.‰ Unlike rape, therefore, consent is immaterial in
cases involving violation of Section 5, Article III of RA 7610.
The mere act of having sexual intercourse or committing lascivious
conduct with a child who is exploited in prostitution or subjected to
sexual abuse constitutes the offense. It is a malum prohibitum,
an evil that is proscribed. A child cannot give consent to a
contract under our civil laws. This is on the rationale that
she can easily be the victim of fraud as she is not capable of
fully understanding or knowing the nature or import of her
actions. The State, as parens patriae, is under the obligation to
minimize the risk of harm to those who, because of their minority,
are as yet unable to take care of themselves fully. Those of tender
years deserve its protection. The harm which results from a childÊs
bad decision in a sexual encounter may be infinitely more damaging
to her than a bad business deal. Thus, the law should protect her
from the harmful consequences of her attempts at adult sexual
behavior. For this reason, a child should not be deemed to have
validly consented to adult sexual activity and to surrender herself
in the act of ultimate physical intimacy under a law which seeks to
afford her special protection against abuse, exploitation and
discrimination. (Otherwise, sexual predators like petitioner
will be justified, or even unwittingly tempted by the law, to
view her as fair game and vulnerable prey.) In other words,

a child is presumed by law to
231
VOL. 698, JUNE 10, 2013 231
Caballo vs. People
be incapable of giving rational consent to any lascivious act

or sexual intercourse.
PETITION for review on certiorari of the decision and

resolution of the Court of Appeals.
The facts are stated in the opinion of the Court.
F.C. Cabilao and Associates for petitioner.
Office of the Solicitor General for respondent.
PERLAS-BERNABE, J.:
Before the Court is a petition for review on certiorari1
assailing the January 28, 2011 Decision2 and September
26, 2011 Resolution3 of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-
G.R. CR No. 27399-MIN which affirmed with modification
the April 1, 2003 Decision of the Regional Trial Court of
Surigao City, Branch 30 (RTC), finding petitioner Christian
Caballo (Caballo) guilty beyond reasonable doubt of
violating Section 10(a), Article VI of Republic Act No. 76104
(RA 7610), otherwise known as the „Special Protection of
Children Against Child Abuse, Exploitation and
Discrimination Act,‰ in relation to Section 2 of the Rules
and Regulations on the Reporting and Investigation of
Child Abuse Cases (Rules on Child Abuse Cases).
_______________
1 Rollo, pp. 8-27.
2 Id., at pp. 30-45. Penned by Associate Justice Nina G. Antonio-
Valenzuela, with Associate Justices Edgardo A. Camello and Leoncia R.
Dimagiba, concurring.
3 Id., at pp. 46-47. Penned by Associate Justice Edgardo A. Camello,
with Associate Justices Melchor Quirino C. Sadang and Zenaida
Galapate Laguilles, concurring.
4 „AN ACT PROVIDING FOR STRONGER DETERRENCE AND SPECIAL PROTECTION
AGAINST CHILD ABUSE, EXPLOITATION AND DISCRIMINATION, AND FOR OTHER
PURPOSES.‰
232

Caballo vs. People
The Facts
On March 16, 1999, an Information5 was filed charging
Caballo of violation of Section 10(a), Article VI of RA 7610
which was later amended on May 28, 1999, to include
statements pertaining to the delivery of private
complainant AAAÊs6 baby. The Amended Information7
reads:
That undersigned Second Assistant City Prosecutor hereby

accuses Christian Caballo of the crime of Violation of Section
10 (a) of Republic Act No. 7610, committed as follows:
_______________
5 Rollo, pp. 31-32.
That undersigned Second Assistant City Prosecutor hereby accuses Christian
Caballo of the crime of Violation of Section 10 (a) of Republic Act No. 7610,
committed as follows:
That in or about the last week of March 1998, and on different dates
subsequent thereto, in the City of Surigao, Philippines, and within the
jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named accused, a 23 year old
man, in utter disregard of the prohibition of the provisions of Republic Act No.
7610 and taking advantage of the innocence and lack of [worldly] experience of
AAA who was only 17 years old at that time, did then and there wilfully,
unlawfully and feloniously commit sexual abuse upon said AAA, by persuading
and inducing the latter to have sexual intercourse with him, which ultimately
resulted to her untimely pregnancy, a condition prejudicial to her development,
to the damage and prejudice of AAA in such amount as may be allowed by law.
CONTRARY TO LAW.
Surigao City, Philippines, March 16, 1999.
6 Pursuant to Republic Act No. 9262, otherwise known as the „Anti-Violence
Against Women and Their Children Act of 2004,‰ and its implementing rules,
the real name of the victim, together with the names of her immediate family
members, is withheld, and fictitious initials instead are used to represent her,
to protect her privacy. See People v. Cabalquinto, 533 Phil. 703, 705-709; 502
SCRA 419, 421 (2006).

7 Rollo, p. 32.
233
VOL. 698, JUNE 10, 2013 233

Caballo vs. People
That in or about the last week of March 1998, and on

different dates subsequent thereto, until June 1998, in the City
of Surigao, Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of this
Honorable Court, the above-named accused, a 23 year old
man, in utter disregard of the prohibition of the provisions of
Republic Act No. 7610 and taking advantage of the innocence
and lack of [worldly] experience of AAA who was only 17 years
old at that time, having been born on November 3, 1980, did
then and there wilfully, unlawfully and feloniously commit
sexual abuse upon said AAA, by persuading and inducing the
latter to have sexual intercourse with him, which ultimately
resulted to her untimely pregnancy and delivery of a baby on
March 8, 1999, a condition prejudicial to her development, to
the damage and prejudice of AAA in such amount as may be
allowed by law.
CONTRARY TO LAW.
Surigao City, Philippines, May 28, 1999.
Upon arraignment, Caballo pleaded not guilty to the

aforesaid charges.8
Based on the records, the undisputed facts are as
follows:
AAA, then 17 years old, met Caballo, then 23 years old,
in her uncleÊs place in Surigao City. Her uncle was a
choreographer and Caballo was one of his dancers. 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
_______________
8 Id., at p. 33.
9 Ibid.
234

Caballo vs. People
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, 1999.11
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 AAAÊs pregnancy and
consequently, advised her to have an abortion. She heeded
CaballoÊs advice; however, her efforts were unsuccessful.
Further, the prosecution averred that when AAAÊs mother
confronted Caballo to find out what his plans were for AAA,
he assured her that he would marry her daughter.12
Opposed to the foregoing, Caballo claimed that during
their first sexual intercourse, AAA was no longer a virgin
as he found it easy to penetrate her and that there was no
bleeding. He also maintained that AAA had (3) three
boyfriends prior to him. Further, he posited that he and
AAA were sweethearts who lived-in together, for one (1)
week in a certain Litang Hotel and another week in the
residence of AAAÊs uncle. Eventually, they broke up due to
the intervention of AAAÊs parents. At a certain time, AAAÊs
mother even told Caballo that he was not deserving of AAA
because he was poor. Lastly, he alleged that he repeatedly
proposed marriage to AAA but was always rejected because
she was still studying.13
_______________
10 Id., at pp. 34-35.
11 Id., at pp. 35-36.
12 Id., at pp. 33-36.
13 Id., at pp. 36-37.
235
VOL. 698, JUNE 10, 2013 235

Caballo vs. People
The RTCÊs Ruling

In a Decision dated April 1, 2003, the RTC found
Caballo guilty beyond reasonable doubt of violation of
Section 10(a), Article VI of RA 7610, in relation to Section 2
of the Rules on Child Abuse Cases. 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 CAÊs Ruling
In a Decision dated January 28, 2011,15 the CA

dismissed the appeal and affirmed with modification the
RTCÊs 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 assur-
_______________
14 Id., at p. 31.
15 Id., at pp. 30-45.
16 Id., at p. 40.
236

Caballo vs. People
ing words that AAA succumbed to CaballoÊs 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
_______________
17 Id., at pp. 41-43.
18 Id., at p. 44.
19 Id., at pp. 46-47.
20 Id., at pp. 58-76.
237
VOL. 698, JUNE 10, 2013 237

Caballo vs. People
CaballoÊs repeated assurances and persuasion that AAA

gave in to his worldly desires. Likewise, it points out that
the sweetheart theory, as relied on by Caballo, deserves
scant consideration in view of the CourtÊs ruling in Malto v.
People (Malto).21
The CourtÊs Ruling
The petition has no merit.

Section 5(b), Article III of RA 7610 pertinently reads:
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 in prostitution and other sexual
abuse.
The penalty of reclusion temporal in its medium period to
reclusion perpetua shall be imposed upon the following:
xxxx
(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 x x x x (Emphasis and
underscoring supplied)
_______________
21 G.R. No. 164733, September 21, 2007, 533 SCRA 643, 653-668.
238

Caballo vs. People
As determined in the case of Olivarez v. CA (Olivarez),22

the elements of the foregoing offense are the following:
(a) The accused commits the act of sexual intercourse or

lascivious conduct;
(b) The said act is performed with a child exploited in
prostitution or subjected to other sexual abuse; and
(c) The child, whether male or female, is below 18 years of
age.
In this case, the existence of the first and third

elements remains undisputed. Records disclose that
Caballo had succeeded in repeatedly having sexual
intercourse with AAA who, during all those instances,
was still a minor. Thus, the only bone of contention lies in
the presence of the second element. On this note, the defense
submits that AAA could not be considered as a „child
exploited in prostitution and other sexual abuse‰ since the
incidents to do not point to any form of „coercion‰ or
„influence‰ on CaballoÊs part.
The argument is untenable.
To put things in proper perspective, it must be pointed
out that RA 7610 was meant to advance the state policy of
affording „special protection to children from all forms of
abuse, neglect, cruelty, exploitation and
discrimination and other conditions prejudicial to
their development‰ and in such regard, „provide

sanctions for their commission.‰23 It
_______________
22 G.R. No. 163866, July 29, 2005, 465 SCRA 465, 473.
23 Section 2, Article I of RA 7610 provides in part:
SEC. 2. Declaration of State Policy and Principles.·It is hereby
declared to be the policy of the State to provide special protection to
children from all forms of abuse, neglect, cruelty, exploitation and
discrimination and other conditions prejudicial to their development;
provide sanctions for their commission and carry out a program for
prevention and deterrence of and crisis intervention in situations of child
abuse, exploitation and discrimination. The State shall intervene on
behalf of the
239
VOL. 698, JUNE 10, 2013 239

Caballo vs. People
also furthers the „best interests of children‰ and as such,

its provisions are guided by this standard.24
Driven by the foregoing considerations, Congress crafted
Article III of the same law in order to penalize child
prostitution and other forms of sexual abuse. Section 5
thereof provides a definition of who is considered a „child
exploited in prostitution and other sexual abuse.‰ As
illumined in Olivarez,25 citing People v. Larin26 and
Amployo v. People,27 the final version of the aforesaid
provision was a product of various deliberations to expand
its original coverage to cases where the minor may have
been coerced or intimidated into sexual intercourse or
lascivious conduct, not necessarily for money or profit, viz.:
_______________
child when the parent, guardian, teacher or person having care or
custody of the child fails or is unable to protect the child against abuse,
exploitation and discrimination or when such acts against the child are
committed by the said parent, guardian, teacher or person having care
and custody of the same.
It shall be the policy of the State to protect and rehabilitate children
gravely threatened or endangered by circumstances which affect or will

affect their survival and normal development and over which they have
no control.
24 Section 2, Article I of RA 7610 provides in part:
Section 2. Declaration of State Policy and Principles.·x x x x
The best interests of children shall be the paramount
consideration in all actions concerning them, whether undertaken
by public or private social welfare institutions, courts of law,
administrative authorities, and legislative bodies, consistent with the
principle of First Call for Children as enunciated in the United Nations
Convention of the Rights of the Child. Every effort shall be exerted to
promote the welfare of children and enhance their opportunities for a
useful and happy life. (Emphasis supplied)
25 Supra note 22, at pp. 474-476.
26 G.R. No. 128777, October 7, 1998, 297 SCRA 309, 319-320.
27 G.R. No. 157718, April 26, 2005, 457 SCRA 282, 295.
240

Caballo vs. People
The second element, i.e., that the act is performed with a

child exploited in prostitution or subjected to other sexual
abuse, is likewise present. As succinctly explained in People v.
Larin:
A child is deemed exploited in prostitution or
subjected to other sexual abuse, when the child
indulges in sexual intercourse or lascivious conduct
(a) for money, profit, or any other consideration; or (b)
under the coercion or influence of any adult,
syndicate or group...
It must be noted that the law covers not only a
situation in which a child is abused for profit, but also
one in which a child, through coercion or
intimidation, engages in lascivious conduct.
We reiterated this ruling in Amployo v. People:
... As we observed in People v. Larin, Section 5 of
Rep. Act No. 7610 does not merely cover a situation of a
child being abused for profit, but also one in which a
child engages in any lascivious conduct through
coercion or intimidation...
Thus, a child is deemed subjected to other sexual

abuse when the child indulges in lascivious conduct
under the coercion or influence of any adult. In this
case, Cristina was sexually abused because she was coerced
or intimidated by petitioner to indulge in a lascivious conduct.
Furthermore, it is inconsequential that the sexual abuse
occurred only once. As expressly provided in Section 3(b) of
R.A. 7610, the abuse may be habitual or not. It must be
observed that Article III of R.A. 7610 is captioned as „Child
Prostitution and Other Sexual Abuse‰ because Congress
really intended to cover a situation where the minor
may have been coerced or intimidated into lascivious
conduct, not necessarily for money or profit. The law
covers not only child prostitution but also other forms
of sexual abuse. This is clear from the deliberations of the
Senate:
241
VOL. 698, JUNE 10, 2013 241

Caballo vs. People
Senator Angara. I refer to line 9, Âwho for money or profit.Ê

I would like to amend this, Mr. President, to cover a situation
where the minor may have been coerced or intimidated into
this lascivious conduct, not necessarily for money or profit, so
that we can cover those situations and not leave loophole in
this section.
The proposal I have is something like this: WHO FOR
MONEY, PROFIT, OR ANY OTHER CONSIDERATION OR
DUE TO THE COERCION OR INFLUENCE OF ANY
ADULT, SYNDICATE OR GROUP INDULGE, et cetera.
The President Pro Tempore. I see. That would mean also
changing the subtitle of Section 4. Will it no longer be child
prostitution?
Senator Angara. No, no. Not necessarily, Mr. President,
because we are still talking of the child who is being misused
for sexual purposes either for money or for consideration.
What I am trying to cover is the other consideration. Because,
here, it is limited only to the child being abused or misused
for sexual purposes, only for money or profit.
I am contending, Mr. President, that there may be
situations where the child may not have been used for profit or
...
The President Pro Tempore. So, it is no longer prostitution.
Because the essence of prostitution is profit.
Senator Angara. Well, the Gentleman is right. Maybe the
heading ought to be expanded. But, still, the President will
agree that that is a form or manner of child abuse.
The President Pro Tempore. What does the Sponsor say?
Will the Gentleman kindly restate the amendment?
242

Caballo vs. People
ANGARA AMENDMENT
Senator Angara. The new section will read
something like this, Mr. President: MINORS,
WHETHER MALE OR FEMALE, WHO FOR MONEY,
PROFIT, OR ANY OTHER CONSIDERATION OR
INFLUENCE OF ANY ADULT, SYNDICATE OR
GROUP INDULGE IN SEXUAL INTERCOURSE, et
cetera.
Senator Lina. It is accepted, Mr. President.
The President Pro Tempore. Is there any objection?
[Silence] Hearing none, the amendment is approved.
How about the title, ÂChild Prostitution,Ê shall we
change that too?
Senator Angara. Yes, Mr. President, to cover the
expanded scope.
The President Pro Tempore. Is that not what we
would call probable Âchild abuseÊ?
Senator Angara. Yes, Mr. President.
The President Pro Tempore. Subject to rewording. Is
there any objection? [Silence] Hearing none, the
amendment is approved. (Emphasis and underscoring
supplied)
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 manner, the law is able to act as an
effective deterrent to quell all forms of abuse, neglect,
cruelty, exploitation and discrimination against children,
prejudicial as they are to their development.
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
243
VOL. 698, JUNE 10, 2013 243

Caballo vs. People
equivalent to intimidation which subdues the free

exercise of the offended partyÊs 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. It is defined as:
The employment, use, persuasion, inducement, enticement or

coercion of a child to engage in or assist another person to
engage in, sexual intercourse or lascivious conduct or the
molestation, prostitution, or incest with children.
To note, the term „influence‰ means the „improper use of

power or trust in any way that deprives a person of free
will and substitutes anotherÊs objective.‰29 Meanwhile,
„coercion‰ is the „improper use of x x x power to compel
another to submit to the wishes of one who wields it.‰30
In view of the foregoing, the Court observes that
CaballoÊs actuations may be classified as „coercion‰ and
„influence‰ within the purview of Section 5, Article III of
RA 7610:
First, the most crucial element is AAAÊs minority. It is
undisputed that AAA was only 17 years old at the time of
the commission of the crime and is hence, considered a
child under the law.31 In this respect, AAA was not capable
of fully
_______________
28 People v. Abello, G.R. No. 151952, 25 March 2009, 582 SCRA 378,
395.
29 The Law Dictionary <http://thelawdictionary.org/undue-influence>
(visited May 27, 2013)
30 The Law Dictionary, 2nd Ed. <http://thelawdictionary.org/
BlackÊs Law Dictionary coercion> (visited May 27, 2013)
31 Section 3 of RA 7610 provides:
SEC. 3. Definition of Terms.·
(a) „Children‰ refers to person below eighteen (18) years of age or
those over but are unable to fully take care of themselves or protect
themselves from abuse, neglect, cruelty, ex-
144

Caballo vs. People
understanding or knowing the import of her actions and in

consequence, remained vulnerable to the cajolery and
deception of adults, as in this case.
Based on this premise, jurisprudence settles that
consent is immaterial in cases involving a violation of
Section 5, Article III of RA 7610; as such, the argument
that AAA and Caballo were sweethearts remains
irrelevant. The Malto ruling is largely instructive on this
point:
For purposes of sexual intercourse and lascivious

conduct in child abuse cases under RA 7610, the
sweetheart defense is unacceptable. A child exploited in
prostitution or subjected to other sexual abuse cannot validly
give consent to sexual intercourse with another person.
The language of the law is clear: it seeks to punish „[t]hose
who commit the act of sexual intercourse or lascivious
conduct with a child exploited in prostitution or subjected to
other sexual abuse.‰
Unlike rape, therefore, consent is immaterial in
cases involving violation of Section 5, Article III of RA
7610. The mere act of having sexual intercourse or
committing lascivious conduct with a child who is exploited in
prostitution or subjected to sexual abuse constitutes the
offense. It is a malum prohibitum, an evil that is
proscribed.
A child cannot give consent to a contract under our
civil laws. This is on the rationale that she can easily
be the victim of fraud as she is not capable of fully
understanding or knowing the nature or import of her
actions. The State, as parens patriae, is under the obligation
to minimize the risk of harm to those who, because of their
minority, are as yet unable to take care of themselves fully.
Those of tender years deserve its protection.
_______________
ploitation or discrimination because of a physical or mental
disability or condition x x x x (Emphasis supplied)
245
VOL. 698, JUNE 10, 2013 245

Caballo vs. People
The harm which results from a childÊs bad decision in a

sexual encounter may be infinitely more damaging to her
than a bad business deal. Thus, the law should protect her
from the harmful consequences of her attempts at adult
sexual behavior. For this reason, a child should not be deemed
to have validly consented to adult sexual activity and to
surrender herself in the act of ultimate physical intimacy
under a law which seeks to afford her special protection
against abuse, exploitation and discrimination. (Otherwise,
sexual predators like petitioner will be justified, or
even unwittingly tempted by the law, to view her as
fair game and vulnerable prey.) In other words, a child
is presumed by law to be incapable of giving rational
consent to any lascivious act or sexual intercourse.
x x x x32 (Emphasis and underscoring supplied; citations
omitted)
Second, coupled with AAAÊs minority is CaballoÊs

seniority. Records indicate that Caballo was 23 years old at
the time of the commission of the offense and therefore, 6
years older than AAA, more or less. 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, CaballoÊs actions effectively constitute overt acts
of coercion and influence. Records reveal that Caballo
repeatedly assured AAA of his love for her, and even,
promised to marry her. In addition, he also guaranteed that
she would not get pregnant since he would be using the
„withdrawal method‰ for safety. Irrefragably, these were
meant to influence AAA to set aside her reservations and
eventually give into having sex with him, with which he
succeeded.
Fourth, at least, with respect to the partiesÊ first sexual
encounter, it is observed that the brash and unexpected
manner in which Caballo pursued AAA to her room and
pressed
_______________
32 Malto v. People, supra note 21, at pp. 661-663. (Citation omitted)
246

Caballo vs. People
on her to have sex with him, effectively placed in, to a

certain extent, a position of duress. An important factor is
that AAA refused CaballoÊs incipient advances and in fact,
asked him to leave. However, AAA eventually yielded.
Thus, it stands to reason that she was put in a situation
deprived of the benefit of clear thought and choice. In any
case, the Court observes that any other choice would,
nonetheless, remain tarnished due to AAAÊs minority as
above-discussed.
Hence, considering that CaballoÊs acts constitute
„coercion‰ and „influence‰ within the context of the law, and
that AAA indulged in sexual intercourse and/or lascivious
conduct with Caballo due to the same, she is deemed as a
„child exploited in prostitution and other sexual abuse;‰ as
such, the second element of the subject offense exists.
In fine, finding all elements to be present, the Court
hereby sustains CaballoÊs conviction for violation of Section
5(b), Article III of RA 7610.
WHEREFORE, the petition is DENIED. The January

28, 2011 Decision and September 26, 2011 Resolution of the
Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CR No. 27399-MIN are hereby
AFFIRMED.
SO ORDERED.
Brion (Acting Chairperson),** Del Castillo, Perez and

Leonen, *** JJ., concur.
Petition denied, judgment and resolution affirmed.
Notes.―A person who commits sexual intercourse or

lascivious conduct with a child exploited in prostitution and
_______________
** Designated Acting Chairperson in lieu of Justice Antonio T. Carpio
per Special Order No. 1460 dated May 29, 2013.
*** Designated Acting Member per Special Order No. 1461 dated May
29, 2013.
247
VOL. 698, JUNE 10, 2013 247

Caballo vs. People
other sexual abuses is liable for child abuse. (People vs.

Salino, 678 SCRA 711 [2012])
Paragraph 5(a) of R.A. No. 7610 essentially punishes
acts pertaining to or connected with child prostitution; In
other words, under paragraph (a), the child is abused
primarily for profit. (People vs. Dulay, 681 SCRA 638
[2012])
――o0o――
© Copyright 2020 Central Book Supply, Inc. All rights reserved.

Christian Caballo, Petitioner, vs. People of The PHILIPPINES, Respondent

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Christian Caballo, Petitioner, vs. People of The PHILIPPINES, Respondent

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Christian Caballo, Petitioner, vs. People of The PHILIPPINES, Respondent

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 698 2/9/20, 5:54 PM

G.R. No. 198732. June 10, 2013.*

CHRISTIAN CABALLO, petitioner, vs. PEOPLE OF THE

Criminal Law; Child Prostitution; Elements of.―Section 5(b),

** Per Special Order No. 1460 dated 29 May 2013.

*** Per Special Order No. 1461 dated 29 May 2013.

228 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Caballo vs. People

intercourse or lascivious conduct, are deemed to be children

under twelve (12) years of age shall be reclusion temporal in its

VOL. 698, JUNE 10, 2013 229

Caballo vs. People

230 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Caballo vs. People

intercourse or lascivious conduct or the molestation, prostitution, or

view her as fair game and vulnerable prey.) In other words,

VOL. 698, JUNE 10, 2013 231

Caballo vs. People

be incapable of giving rational consent to any lascivious act

PETITION for review on certiorari of the decision and

AGAINST CHILD ABUSE, EXPLOITATION AND DISCRIMINATION, AND FOR OTHER

232 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

That undersigned Second Assistant City Prosecutor hereby

SCRA 419, 421 (2006).

VOL. 698, JUNE 10, 2013 233

That in or about the last week of March 1998, and on

Upon arraignment, Caballo pleaded not guilty to the

was followed by several

234 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

more of the same in April 1998, in the first and second

VOL. 698, JUNE 10, 2013 235

The RTCÊs Ruling

The CAÊs Ruling

In a Decision dated January 28, 2011,15 the CA

would not get pregnant because he would be using the

236 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

ing words that AAA succumbed to CaballoÊs evil desires

thus, made the sexual intercourse consensual.

VOL. 698, JUNE 10, 2013 237

CaballoÊs repeated assurances and persuasion that AAA

The CourtÊs Ruling

The petition has no merit.

SEC. 5. Child Prostitution and Other Sexual Abuse.·

shall be prosecuted under Article 335, paragraph 3 for rape

238 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

As determined in the case of Olivarez v. CA (Olivarez),22

(a) The accused commits the act of sexual intercourse or

In this case, the existence of the first and third

their development‰ and in such regard, „provide

VOL. 698, JUNE 10, 2013 239

also furthers the „best interests of children‰ and as such,

gravely threatened or endangered by circumstances which affect or will

240 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

The second element, i.e., that the act is performed with a

Thus, a child is deemed subjected to other sexual

VOL. 698, JUNE 10, 2013 241

Senator Angara. I refer to line 9, Âwho for money or profit.Ê

242 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

As it is presently worded, Section 5, Article III of RA