G.R. No. 249307 , August 27, 2020
BBB, Petitioner, vs. The People of the Philippines, Respondent.

FACTS

The case involves the conviction of petitioner BBB for rape by sexual assault under Article 266-A, paragraph 2 of the Revised Penal Code (RPC), as amended. The victim was an 11-year-old minor. The main decision (ponencia) affirmed the conviction but held Republic Act No. 7610 (R.A. 7610) inapplicable, imposing the penalty under the RPC instead. The ponencia based this inapplicability on the fact that BBB was himself a minor (15 years old) at the time of the crime, and R.A. 7610 only covers adult offenders.

ISSUE

Whether the inapplicability of the stiffer penalty under R.A. 7610 should be based on the minority of the offender (BBB) or on the absence of the element that the child-victim was “exploited in prostitution or subjected to other sexual abuse” (EPSOSA).

RULING

Justice Caguioa, in a Concurring and Dissenting Opinion, concurs with the affirmance of BBB’s conviction for rape by sexual assault under the RPC and the ultimate conclusion that R.A. 7610 is inapplicable. However, he dissents from the ponencia’s basis for that inapplicability.
He argues that R.A. 7610 and the RPC have different spheres of application and are meant to complement each other, not operate simultaneously in every case of sexual abuse against a minor. For Section 5(b) of R.A. 7610 to apply and trigger its higher penalty, it must be alleged and proven that the child-victim was EPSOSA—meaning the child indulged in sexual intercourse or lascivious conduct for money, profit, any other consideration, or due to the coercion or influence of any adult, syndicate, or group.
In this case, the Information did not allege that the 11-year-old victim was EPSOSA. Furthermore, no evidence was presented during trial to prove she indulged in such acts for consideration or due to coercion. Therefore, the penalty under R.A. 7610 cannot be imposed because the essential element of the victim being EPSOSA was neither alleged nor proved. The correct basis for the inapplicability of R.A. 7610 is the absence of this distinct element, not the minority of the offender. Using the offender’s minority as the gauge could lead to incongruent results and undermine the legislative intent of R.A. 7610 to specially protect children who are sexually exploited for consideration.