06/04/2026
โผ๏ธNew guidelines instituted for uniform prosecution of cases under RA 7610 (child abuse) per latest jurisprudence.
The (SC) clarified the application of lascivious conduct under ๐๐ฆ๐ฑ๐ถ๐ฃ๐ญ๐ช๐ค ๐๐ค๐ต (๐๐) ๐๐ฐ. 7610, or ๐ต๐ฉ๐ฆ ๐๐ฑ๐ฆ๐ค๐ช๐ข๐ญ ๐๐ณ๐ฐ๐ต๐ฆ๐ค๐ต๐ช๐ฐ๐ฏ ๐ฐ๐ง ๐๐ฉ๐ช๐ญ๐ฅ๐ณ๐ฆ๐ฏ ๐๐จ๐ข๐ช๐ฏ๐ด๐ต ๐๐ฃ๐ถ๐ด๐ฆ, ๐๐น๐ฑ๐ญ๐ฐ๐ช๐ต๐ข๐ต๐ช๐ฐ๐ฏ ๐ข๐ฏ๐ฅ ๐๐ช๐ด๐ค๐ณ๐ช๐ฎ๐ช๐ฏ๐ข๐ต๐ช๐ฐ๐ฏ ๐๐ค๐ต, in relation to acts of lasciviousness under the ๐๐ฆ๐ท๐ช๐ด๐ฆ๐ฅ ๐๐ฆ๐ฏ๐ข๐ญ ๐๐ฐ๐ฅ๐ฆ (๐๐๐).
In a Decision written by Associate Justice Henri Jean Paul B. Inting, the SC ๐๐ฏ ๐๐ข๐ฏ๐ค upheld Jeffrey L. Gramaticaโs conviction for lascivious conduct under ๐๐ฆ๐ค๐ต๐ช๐ฐ๐ฏ 5(๐ฃ) ๐ฐ๐ง ๐๐ 7610, but modified another accusedโs (###2660399) conviction for acts of lasciviousness under ๐๐ณ๐ต๐ช๐ค๐ญ๐ฆ 366 ๐ฐ๐ง ๐ต๐ฉ๐ฆ ๐๐๐.
In these consolidated cases involving minors, AAA, BBB, and CCC, the Supreme Court laid down guidelines to ensure the proper prosecution of cases under these two distinct laws.
AAA and BBB, both addicted to shabu, engaged in sexual acts with Gramatica and another man in exchange for the drug. Gramatica was later arrested and prosecuted for violation of ๐๐ฆ๐ค๐ต๐ช๐ฐ๐ฏ 5(๐ฃ) ๐ฐ๐ง ๐๐ 7610, which penalizes lascivious conduct committed against a child exploited in prostitution or other sexual abuse.
In the other case, CCC was victimized by her grandfather, ###266039, who touched her private parts while she was sleeping. ###266039 was also charged under ๐๐ฆ๐ค๐ต๐ช๐ฐ๐ฏ 5(๐ฃ) ๐ฐ๐ง ๐๐ 7610.
In his defense, Gramatica claimed that he courted BBB and had a sexual relationship with her but did not know she was a minor because she looked mature. For his part, ###266039 denied the charges and claimed he merely woke CCC up to ask her for help applying his eye medicine.
The Regional Trial Court found both Gramatica and ###266039 guilty of lascivious conduct under ๐๐ฆ๐ค๐ต๐ช๐ฐ๐ฏ 5(๐ฃ) ๐ฐ๐ง ๐๐ 7610 towards BBB and CCC, respectively. The Court of Appeals affirmed their convictions.
A minor is considered to have been subjected to other sexual abuse when they are a victim of lascivious conduct under the coercion or influence of an adult. In this case, BBB was 14 and CCC was 17 at the time of the incident. Gramatica was 23, and ###266039 was 62.
Both courts found that Gramatica took advantage of BBBโs youth and vulnerable situation, using his influence over her to make her submit to his sexual demands. Meanwhile, ###266039, due to his age and relationship as CCCโs grandfather, was able to exert control over her and exploit her trust.
The SC affirmed Gramaticaโs conviction under RA 7610, but modified ###266039โs conviction from acts of lasciviousness under ๐๐ฆ๐ค๐ต๐ช๐ฐ๐ฏ 5(๐ฃ) ๐ฐ๐ง ๐๐ 7610 to acts of lasciviousness under the RPC explaining that RA 7610 does not apply where the minor is entirely unaware, coerced or unconscious as the victim in that instance is not considered to have โindulgedโ in the sexual in*******se.
A plain and straightforward interpretation of ๐๐ฆ๐ค๐ต๐ช๐ฐ๐ฏ 5(๐ฃ) ๐ฐ๐ง ๐๐ 7610 provides a clear definition of children subjected to other sexual abuse as those who indulge in sexual in*******se or lascivious conduct due to the coercion or influence of an adult.
The SC clarified the scope of lascivious conduct under ๐๐ฆ๐ค๐ต๐ช๐ฐ๐ฏ 5(๐ฃ) ๐ฐ๐ง ๐๐ 7610 and distinguished it from related crimes under the RPC. To ensure uniform and consistent prosecution of cases, the Supreme Court laid down guidelines, considering also RA 11648, which raised the age of sexual consent to 16 years old.
๐๐๐ง๐จ๐ฉ, ๐๐ฆ๐ค๐ต๐ช๐ฐ๐ฏ 5(๐ฃ) ๐ฐ๐ง ๐๐ 7610 applies to children who are 12 years of age (now 16 years old following the amendment under RA 11648) to below 18 who are subjected to sexual abuse.
๐๐๐๐ค๐ฃ๐, it covers situations where consent is present but defective. The minor may seem to โindulgeโ or agree, but does so not out of free will, but because of coercion or influence by an adult. Thus, engaging in sexual acts with a child exploited in prostitution or subjected to sexual abuse is a criminal act, regardless of apparent consent.
๐๐๐๐ง๐, it does not apply when the act involves force, intimidation, fraud, deprivation of reason, unconsciousness, or grave abuse of authority. In such cases, the crime falls under acts of lasciviousness under the RPC.
๐๐ค๐ช๐ง๐ฉ๐, if the victim is under 12 or under 16, and the case does not fit Section 5(b), the crime is r**e or acts of lasciviousness under the RPC.
These principles, which distinguish force and intimidation on one hand, and coercion and influence on the other, and limit RA 7610 to minors who are exploited in prostitution or sexual abuse, also apply to other sexual crimes, including r**e.
In this case, BBB was a child exploited in prostitution or other sexual abuse because she had sexual in*******se with Gramatica in exchange for some consideration, namely shabu, which makes him criminally liable under Section 5(b).
Meanwhile, ๐๐ฆ๐ค๐ต๐ช๐ฐ๐ฏ 5(๐ฃ) ๐ฐ๐ง ๐๐ 7610 does not apply to ###266039.
The Supreme Court clarified that not all acts of lasciviousness against minors aged 12 to under 18 are covered by RA 7610. The law applies only when minors are subjected to sexual abuse, such as when they โindulgeโ or give defective consent to the conduct.
Here, CCC did not indulge in lascivious conduct, as she was asleep and unconscious during the incident. ###266039 did not use coercion or influence, but relied on his moral ascendancy as her grandfather, which counts as intimidation. These circumstances make ###266039 liable for acts of lasciviousness under ๐๐ณ๐ต๐ช๐ค๐ญ๐ฆ 336 ๐ฐ๐ง ๐ต๐ฉ๐ฆ ๐๐๐, rather than RA 7610.
For lascivious conduct under Section 5(b) involving BBB, Gramatica was sentenced to a maximum of 17 years, four months, and one day in prison and ordered to pay BBB PHP 150,000 in civil indemnity and damages, as well as a PHP 15,000 fine.
For acts of lasciviousness under ๐๐ณ๐ต๐ช๐ค๐ญ๐ฆ 336 ๐ฐ๐ง ๐ต๐ฉ๐ฆ ๐๐๐, ###266039 was sentenced to a maximum of six years in prison and ordered to pay CCC PHP450,000 in civil indemnity and damages with interest.
The SC acknowledged that under current laws, ###266039, โwho committed abhorrent and be***al acts against his minor granddaughter,โ faces a penalty lower than that under RA 7610, and called on the legislature to amend existing laws to better protect children.
The SC calls the legislature to review and amend current laws protecting children, thus:
โ๐๐ฏ ๐ญ๐ช๐ฏ๐ฆ ๐ธ๐ช๐ต๐ฉ ๐ต๐ฉ๐ฆ ๐ข๐ฃ๐ฐ๐ท๐ฆ, ๐ข๐ฏ๐ฅ ๐ช๐ฏ ๐ง๐ถ๐ญ๐ง๐ช๐ญ๐ญ๐ฎ๐ฆ๐ฏ๐ต ๐ฐ๐ง ๐ต๐ฉ๐ฆ ๐๐ฐ๐ถ๐ณ๐ตโ๐ด ๐ฅ๐ถ๐ต๐บ ๐ต๐ฐ ๐ถ๐ฑ๐ฉ๐ฐ๐ญ๐ฅ ๐ต๐ฉ๐ฆ ๐๐ฐ๐ฏ๐ด๐ต๐ช๐ต๐ถ๐ต๐ช๐ฐ๐ฏ, ๐ธ๐ฉ๐ช๐ค๐ฉ ๐ฎ๐ข๐ฏ๐ฅ๐ข๐ต๐ฆ๐ด ๐ต๐ฉ๐ฆ ๐ด๐ฑ๐ฆ๐ค๐ช๐ข๐ญ ๐ฑ๐ณ๐ฐ๐ต๐ฆ๐ค๐ต๐ช๐ฐ๐ฏ ๐ฐ๐ง ๐ค๐ฉ๐ช๐ญ๐ฅ๐ณ๐ฆ๐ฏ ๐ง๐ณ๐ฐ๐ฎ ๐ข๐ญ๐ญ ๐ง๐ฐ๐ณ๐ฎ๐ด ๐ฐ๐ง ๐ฏ๐ฆ๐จ๐ญ๐ฆ๐ค๐ต, ๐ข๐ฃ๐ถ๐ด๐ฆ, ๐ค๐ณ๐ถ๐ฆ๐ญ๐ต๐บ, ๐ฆ๐น๐ฑ๐ญ๐ฐ๐ช๐ต๐ข๐ต๐ช๐ฐ๐ฏ ๐ข๐ฏ๐ฅ ๐ฐ๐ต๐ฉ๐ฆ๐ณ ๐ค๐ฐ๐ฏ๐ฅ๐ช๐ต๐ช๐ฐ๐ฏ๐ด ๐ฑ๐ณ๐ฆ๐ซ๐ถ๐ฅ๐ช๐ค๐ช๐ข๐ญ ๐ต๐ฐ ๐ต๐ฉ๐ฆ๐ช๐ณ ๐ฅ๐ฆ๐ท๐ฆ๐ญ๐ฐ๐ฑ๐ฎ๐ฆ๐ฏ๐ต, ๐ญ๐ฆ๐ต ๐ต๐ฉ๐ช๐ด ๐ด๐ฆ๐ณ๐ท๐ฆ ๐ข๐ด ๐ข ๐ค๐ข๐ญ๐ญ ๐ต๐ฐ ๐ต๐ฉ๐ฆ ๐ญ๐ฆ๐จ๐ช๐ด๐ญ๐ข๐ต๐ถ๐ณ๐ฆ ๐ต๐ฐ ๐ง๐ถ๐ญ๐ง๐ช๐ญ๐ญ ๐ช๐ต๐ด ๐ฃ๐ฐ๐ถ๐ฏ๐ฅ๐ฆ๐ฏ ๐ฅ๐ถ๐ต๐บ ๐ฐ๐ง ๐ณ๐ฆ๐ท๐ช๐ฆ๐ธ๐ช๐ฏ๐จ ๐ข๐ฏ๐ฅ ๐ข๐ฎ๐ฆ๐ฏ๐ฅ๐ช๐ฏ๐จ ๐ฐ๐ถ๐ณ ๐ฑ๐ณ๐ฆ๐ด๐ฆ๐ฏ๐ต ๐ญ๐ข๐ธ๐ด ๐ข๐ฏ๐ฅ ๐ฆ๐ฏ๐ด๐ถ๐ณ๐ช๐ฏ๐จ ๐ต๐ฉ๐ฆ ๐ด๐ข๐ง๐ฆ๐ต๐บ, ๐ธ๐ฆ๐ญ๐ญ-๐ฃ๐ฆ๐ช๐ฏ๐จ, ๐ข๐ฏ๐ฅ ๐ฅ๐ช๐จ๐ฏ๐ช๐ต๐บ ๐ฐ๐ง ๐ฐ๐ถ๐ณ ๐๐ช๐ญ๐ช๐ฑ๐ช๐ฏ๐ฐ ๐ค๐ฉ๐ช๐ญ๐ฅ๐ณ๐ฆ๐ฏ.โ
Read the full text of the press release at https://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/?p=162863
Read the full text of the Decision https://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/?p=162842
Read the Separate Concurring Opinion of Senior Associate Justice Marvic M.V.F. Leonen at https://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/260233-266039-separate-concurring-opinion-senior-associate-justice-marvic-m-v-f-leonen/
Read the Concurring Opinion of Associate Justice Alfredo Benjamin S. Caguioa at https://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/260233-266039-concurring-opinion-associate-justice-alfredo-benjamin-s-caguioa/
Read the Separate Concurring Opinion of Associate Justice Rodil V. Zalameda at https://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/260233-266039-separate-concurring-opinion-associate-justice-rodil-v-zalameda/
Copying of this content is subject to the SC PIOโs Credit Attribution Policy: https://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/credit-attribution
