G.R. No. 198732; June 10, 2013
CHRISTIAN CABALLO, Petitioner, vs. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Respondent.

FACTS

An Amended Information was filed charging petitioner Christian Caballo with violation of Section 10(a), Article VI of Republic Act No. 7610 (RA 7610). The charge stemmed from incidents in 1998 where Caballo, then 23 years old, willfully, unlawfully, and feloniously committed sexual abuse upon AAA, who was then 17 years old, by persuading and inducing her to have sexual intercourse with him, resulting in her pregnancy and the delivery of a baby on March 8, 1999. The undisputed facts show that AAA and Caballo became sweethearts. In the last week of March 1998, Caballo persuaded AAA to have sexual intercourse, which was followed by several more instances in April, May, August, and November 1998. AAA became pregnant in June 1998. The prosecution asserted that Caballo induced AAA with promises of marriage and assurances that she would not get pregnant due to his use of the “withdrawal method,” and that upon learning of the pregnancy, he advised her to have an abortion. Caballo claimed their relationship was consensual, that AAA was not a virgin, and that he had proposed marriage but was rejected. The Regional Trial Court found Caballo guilty of violating Section 10(a), Article VI of RA 7610. The Court of Appeals affirmed but modified the conviction, finding him guilty of violating Section 5(b), Article III of RA 7610 instead, ruling that the body of the Amended Information supported a charge under that provision.

ISSUE

Whether the Court of Appeals erred in finding petitioner Christian Caballo guilty of violating Section 5(b), Article III of RA 7610, specifically regarding the interpretation of the phrase “due to the coercion or influence of any adult” which defines a “child exploited in prostitution and other sexual abuse.”

RULING

The petition has no merit. The Supreme Court affirmed the decision of the Court of Appeals. The elements of violation of Section 5(b), Article III of RA 7610 are: (a) the accused commits the act of sexual intercourse or lascivious conduct; (b) the act is performed with a child exploited in prostitution or subjected to other sexual abuse; and (c) the child is below 18 years of age. The first and third elements were undisputed. The core issue was whether AAA was a “child exploited in prostitution or subjected to other sexual abuse” under the law. The Court ruled that the phrase “due to the coercion or influence of any adult” includes not only physical coercion or intimidation but also any means, such as persuasion, enticement, or influence, that compels or induces the child to engage in sexual intercourse. Caballo’s repeated assurances of love, promises of marriage, and assurance of using the “withdrawal method” constituted the “influence” contemplated by the law, which overpowered AAA’s will and rendered her submission not entirely voluntary. Consent is immaterial in such cases. The sweetheart defense is unacceptable, as the law aims to protect minors from sexual abuse and exploitation regardless of the relationship with the offender. Thus, Caballo was correctly found guilty beyond reasonable doubt of violating Section 5(b), Article III of RA 7610.