G.R. No. 256452 , February 25, 2025
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee, vs. WILLEM JOHANNES PEEK, Accused-Appellant.

FACTS

Two Informations were filed against accused-appellant Willem Johannes Peek for sexual abuse under Republic Act No. 7610 and qualified trafficking under Republic Act No. 9208 , as amended. The victim, AAA256452, was a 15-year-old minor. They met through Facebook Messenger in October 2016 and became sweethearts. Peek asked for and received nude photos of AAA256452 in exchange for money (PHP 1,000, PHP 5,000, and PHP 10,000). When she asked him to stop, Peek threatened to upload the photos on Facebook. Peek later asked to meet in person, and they discussed having sexual intercourse. AAA256452 agreed to meet for PHP 10,000. On January 31, 2017, AAA256452 and her sister went to Peek’s apartment. When her sister left, Peek forced AAA256452 to have sexual intercourse, inserting his penis into her vagina and anus despite her pleas to stop. He prevented her from screaming by inserting his tongue in her mouth. Afterward, she reported the incident. Peek denied the allegations, claiming the photos and interactions were consensual and that only dinner occurred at his apartment before his arrest. AAA256452 later submitted an Affidavit of Recantation. The Regional Trial Court convicted Peek, and the Court of Appeals sustained the conviction with modified penalties. The ponencia affirmed the conviction but re-designated the offense from sexual abuse to rape under the Revised Penal Code.

ISSUE

Whether the accused-appellant should be convicted of rape under the Revised Penal Code instead of sexual abuse under Republic Act No. 7610 , and whether his conviction for qualified trafficking under Republic Act No. 9208 , as amended, is proper.

RULING

The concurring opinion agrees with the ponencia that accused-appellant committed rape under Article 266-A of the Revised Penal Code, not sexual abuse under Section 5(b) of Republic Act No. 7610 . The elements of rape through force, threat, or intimidation were present, as Peek used the threat of exposing nude photos to coerce the meeting and then forced nonconsensual sexual intercourse. The crime of sexual abuse under Republic Act No. 7610 applies to children exploited in prostitution, where sexual intercourse is voluntary and consensual as a consequence of prostitution, induced by coercion or influence to become a prostitute, which was not the circumstance here. The opinion also concurs that Peek should be convicted of qualified trafficking under Republic Act No. 9208 , as amended, as the acts of obtaining and maintaining a child for sexual exploitation constitute trafficking, and the victim being a child qualifies the offense. The opinion further notes that Peek’s act of soliciting nude photos from a minor could constitute a separate offense of child pornography under relevant cybercrime laws.