In a recent decision, the Supreme Court clarified the application of Republic Act (R.A.) No. 7610, also known as the Special Protection of Children Against Abuse, Exploitation and Discrimination Act, in cases involving lascivious conduct against children. The Court ruled that when a parent commits lascivious acts against their child, they can be held liable under R.A. No. 7610, even if the initial charge was for rape through sexual assault under the Revised Penal Code (RPC). This decision underscores the state’s commitment to safeguarding children and ensuring that perpetrators face appropriate legal consequences. The imposition of a higher penalty reflects the gravity of the offense and the betrayal of trust inherent in such cases.

When Trust is Betrayed: Revisiting Parental Liability Under R.A. 7610

The case of Manuel Barallas Ramilo v. People of the Philippines stemmed from an incident where a father, Manuel, was accused of sexually abusing his twelve-year-old daughter, AAA. Initially charged with rape through sexual assault under Article 266-A of the RPC, the Regional Trial Court (RTC) found Manuel guilty beyond reasonable doubt. The Court of Appeals (CA) affirmed this decision with modifications. However, the Supreme Court, while upholding the conviction, reclassified the offense to Lascivious Conduct under Section 5(b), Article III of R.A. No. 7610. This decision hinged on the principle that R.A. No. 7610 provides stronger deterrence against child abuse, and as a special law, it prevails over general laws like the RPC in cases involving child victims.

The Supreme Court’s decision underscores the primacy of R.A. No. 7610 in protecting children from abuse and exploitation. Building on this principle, the Court emphasized that when lascivious conduct falls under the definition of R.A. No. 7610, the offender should be prosecuted under this special law if the victim is a child. The Court cited Dimakuta v. People, elucidating that R.A. No. 7610 is a special law designed to afford special protection to children, warranting its precedence over general laws. This approach contrasts with cases where the victim is an adult, in which case Article 266-A of the RPC would apply unless the adult is unable to fully care for themselves due to a disability.

The rationale behind prioritizing R.A. No. 7610 lies in its specific focus on child welfare. As the Court stated in People v. Chingh:

it was not the intention of the framers of R.A. No. 8353 to have disallowed the applicability of R.A. No. 7610 to sexual abuses committed to children. Despite the passage of R.A. No. 8353, R.A. No. 7610 is still [a] good law, which must be applied when the victims are children or those ‘persons 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, exploitation or discrimination because of a physical or mental disability or condition.’

In the Ramilo case, the fact that AAA was twelve years old at the time of the offense triggered the application of Section 5(b), Article III of R.A. No. 7610, which addresses child prostitution and other sexual abuse. This provision penalizes those who commit acts of lascivious conduct with a child exploited in prostitution or subjected to other sexual abuse. However, it is critical to establish that the elements of lasciviousness, as defined under Article 336 of the RPC, are met, in addition to the requisites for sexual abuse under R.A. No. 7610. The Court in Quimvel v. People outlined these requisites, emphasizing the need to prove the lascivious act and the circumstances under which it was committed:

1. That the offender commits any act of lasciviousness or lewdness;
2. That it is done under any of the following circumstances:
   

   a)	Through force, threat, or intimidation;
   b)	When the offended party is deprived of reason or otherwise unconscious;
   c)	By means of fraudulent machination or grave abuse of authority;
   d)	When the offended party is under twelve (12) years of age or is demented, even though none of the circumstances mentioned above be present;

3. [That said act is performed with a child exploited in prostitution or subjected to other sexual abuse; and
4. That the offended party is a child, whether male or female, below 18 years of age.]

In Ramilo’s case, the prosecution successfully demonstrated these elements through AAA’s testimony, which described the specific acts of lasciviousness committed by her father. The Court noted that the acts of molestation, coupled with threats, constituted sexual abuse and lascivious conduct as defined in the Rules and Regulations on the Reporting and Investigation of Child Abuse Cases. The definition of “sexual abuse” includes the coercion of a child to engage in lascivious conduct, and “lascivious conduct” encompasses the intentional touching of genitalia with intent to abuse or gratify sexual desire. The court emphasized Manuel’s moral ascendancy over his minor daughter, highlighting that in cases involving relatives, moral influence can substitute for physical force.

Moreover, the Supreme Court addressed the defense’s arguments regarding AAA’s alleged motive to fabricate the charges and the lack of physical evidence. The Court reaffirmed that ill motives are inconsequential when the victim’s testimony is credible and establishes the accused’s liability. Furthermore, the absence of hymenal lacerations or other physical injuries does not negate the commission of the crime. Instead, the victim’s testimony holds paramount importance, and a medical examination is not indispensable for conviction.

Applying these principles to the case at hand, the Court designated the offense as Lascivious Conduct under Section 5(b), Article III of R.A. No. 7610. In accordance with the guidelines set forth in People v. Caoili, the penalty for this offense, given AAA’s age, is reclusion temporal in its medium period to reclusion perpetua. However, considering that Manuel was AAA’s father, the alternative circumstance of relationship was considered an aggravating factor, leading to the imposition of the maximum penalty, reclusion perpetua. This decision reflects the judiciary’s commitment to ensuring that perpetrators of child abuse face severe consequences, especially when they are in positions of trust and authority.

The Court referenced People v. Jugueta and People v. Salvador Tulagan, increasing the penalties to include civil indemnity, moral damages, and exemplary damages, each in the amount of P75,000.00. The Court also imposed a fine of P15,000.00, in line with Section 31(f), Article XII of R.A. No. 7610. These penalties are designed not only to punish the offender but also to provide some measure of compensation and support to the victim. The Court also mandated a six percent (6%) per annum interest rate from the date of finality of the judgment until fully paid.

The Ramilo case serves as a reminder of the importance of R.A. No. 7610 in safeguarding children from abuse and exploitation. The decision reaffirms the principle that special laws designed to protect vulnerable groups take precedence over general laws. Furthermore, it highlights the significance of the victim’s testimony in prosecuting cases of child abuse, even in the absence of physical evidence. By holding perpetrators accountable and imposing severe penalties, the judiciary sends a clear message that child abuse will not be tolerated.

FAQs

What was the key issue in this case?	The key issue was whether the accused, a father, should be convicted of rape through sexual assault under the Revised Penal Code or lascivious conduct under the Special Protection of Children Against Abuse, Exploitation and Discrimination Act (R.A. 7610) for acts committed against his daughter. The Supreme Court ultimately held him liable under R.A. 7610, underscoring its primacy in protecting children.
What is R.A. 7610?	R.A. 7610, also known as the Special Protection of Children Against Abuse, Exploitation and Discrimination Act, is a Philippine law that provides stronger deterrence and special protection against child abuse, exploitation, and discrimination. It sets out penalties for various offenses committed against children.
What constitutes lascivious conduct under R.A. 7610?	Under R.A. 7610, lascivious conduct includes the intentional touching of the genitalia, anus, groin, breast, inner thigh, or buttocks, or the introduction of any object into these areas, with the intent to abuse, humiliate, harass, degrade, or arouse or gratify the sexual desire of any person. This definition is also found in the Rules and Regulations on the Reporting and Investigation of Child Abuse Cases.
What is the significance of the victim’s age in this case?	The victim’s age is critical because R.A. 7610 specifically protects individuals under eighteen (18) years of age. Since the victim was twelve (12) years old at the time of the offense, the provisions of R.A. 7610 were directly applicable, leading to the reclassification of the offense from rape through sexual assault to lascivious conduct under R.A. 7610.
Why was the father’s relationship to the victim considered an aggravating circumstance?	The father’s relationship to the victim was considered an aggravating circumstance because it involves a breach of trust and moral ascendancy. The Court recognizes that in cases of abuse committed by relatives, the moral influence or ascendancy of the perpetrator over the victim can substitute for physical force or intimidation.
Does the absence of physical injuries mean that no crime was committed?	No, the absence of physical injuries, such as hymenal lacerations, does not negate the commission of the crime. The Court has consistently held that the victim’s testimony is of paramount importance, and a medical examination is not indispensable for conviction in cases of sexual abuse.
What penalties were imposed on the accused in this case?	The accused was sentenced to suffer the penalty of reclusion perpetua and to pay a fine of P15,000.00. He was further ordered to pay the victim, AAA, civil indemnity, moral damages, and exemplary damages, each in the amount of P75,000.00. The fine, civil indemnity, and damages are subject to interest at the rate of six percent (6%) per annum from the date of finality of the decision until fully paid.
What are the guidelines for designating the proper offense in cases of lascivious conduct under R.A. 7610?	As prescribed in People v. Caoili, the guidelines consider the victim’s age. If the victim is under twelve (12), the crime is designated as “Acts of Lasciviousness under Article 336 of the RPC in relation to Section 5(b) of R.A. No. 7610.” If the victim is twelve (12) or older but below eighteen (18), or is unable to care for themselves due to a disability, the crime is “Lascivious Conduct under Section 5(b) of R.A. No. 7610.”

The Ramilo decision reinforces the legal framework for protecting children from abuse and exploitation. By prioritizing R.A. No. 7610 and imposing severe penalties on perpetrators, the Supreme Court sends a strong message that child abuse will not be tolerated. This case serves as a crucial reference for legal professionals and anyone involved in child welfare, emphasizing the need for vigilance and strict adherence to the laws protecting our children.

For inquiries regarding the application of this ruling to specific circumstances, please contact ASG Law through contact or via email at frontdesk@asglawpartners.com.

Disclaimer: This analysis is provided for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. For specific legal guidance tailored to your situation, please consult with a qualified attorney.
Source: MANUEL BARALLAS RAMILO v. PEOPLE, G.R. No. 234841, June 03, 2019