G.R. No. 249149 , December 2, 2020
People of the Philippines, Plaintiff-Appellee, vs. Jose Cabales y Webber @ “Basil”, Accused-Appellant.

FACTS

The case involves the conviction of accused-appellant Jose Cabales for acts of sexual abuse committed against a 15-year-old minor. The ponencia affirmed his guilt and convicted him of Lascivious Conduct under Section 5(b) of Republic Act No. 7610 (the Special Protection of Children Against Abuse, Exploitation and Discrimination Act), imposing a penalty ranging from prision mayor to reclusion temporal.
Justice Caguioa, in a Concurring and Dissenting Opinion, agrees with the affirmation of Cabales’s guilt beyond reasonable doubt. However, he dissents from the legal classification of the crime and the corresponding penalty imposed by the main decision.

ISSUE

Whether the accused-appellant should be convicted under Section 5(b) of R.A. No. 7610 or under the Revised Penal Code (RPC), as amended.

RULING

Justice Caguioa dissents, arguing that the conviction should be for Sexual Assault under paragraph 2, Article 266-A of the Revised Penal Code (RPC), as amended by R.A. No. 8353 (The Anti-Rape Law of 1997), not under R.A. No. 7610 . His legal logic is anchored on the distinct and complementary spheres of application of these two laws. He maintains that Section 5(b) of R.A. No. 7610 applies specifically and exclusively to instances where the child victim is “exploited in prostitution or subjected to other sexual abuse” (EPSOSA). This EPSOSA element is separate and distinct from the victim’s minority.
For a valid conviction under Section 5(b) triggering its higher penalty, it must be both alleged in the Information and proven during trial that the child indulged in the sexual act for money, profit, any other consideration, or due to coercion or influence of an adult or group. In this case, the Information only alleged the victim’s age (15 years old) but did not allege she was EPSOSA. Furthermore, no evidence was presented to prove she engaged in the lascivious conduct for consideration or under coercion. Consequently, the essential element for applying R.A. No. 7610 ’s Section 5(b) is absent. Therefore, the proper crime is Sexual Assault under the RPC, which carries a lower penalty range of prision correccional to prision mayor.