26/01/2026
New guidelines in determining prosecution of s*xual act perpetrated against minors between the ages of 16 and 18 years old now require a semblance of consent from the minor .
The Supreme Court zeroed in on the use of the phrase “indulge in s*xual intercourse” in the law in defining a child exploited in prostitution and subjected to other s*xual abuse. The word indulge connotes a degree of consent, albeit defective due to the child’s age. This consent would ultimately determine whether the act complained of falls within punishable s*xual conduct under the Revised Penal Code (RPC) or under Republic Act No. 7610.
The case stemmed from the complaint of AAA and BBB who were rescued in the hands of two adult men. Evidence disclosed that AAA and BBB, both minors, engaged in s*xual acts with the two men in exchange for illegal drugs. One of the accused was convicted of lascivious conduct against BBB under Sec. 5(b) of R.A. No. 7160 and of child abuse under Sec. 10(a) of R.A. No. 7160 for selling illegal drugs to AAA.
Accused appealed his convictions, eventually reaching the Supreme Court, where he argued that his consensual relationship with BBB should have been taken into consideration in determining his guilt.
In denying the appeal, the Supreme Court explained that although consensual s*xual conduct between an adult and a minor between 16 to 18 years old may not result into any liability, BBB is nevertheless a child exploited in prostitution and subjected to other s*xual abuse because she consented to the s*xual act for payment in the form of illegal drugs. Her status as an exploited minor plus the persuasion of the accused were sufficient to find the latter guilty of s*xual abuse.
The Supreme Court emphasized that R.A. No. 7610 was passed to fill a gap in the RPC and prevent a situation where there could be no crime because of the existence of consent even if the consenting minor was exploited into s*x or prostitution.
In sum, the new guidelines limit the application of Sec. 5(b) of R.A. No. 7610 to cases where the child, aged between 16 to 18, indulges or engages in s*xual conduct through the adult’s use of coercion and influence, or simply, when the child gives defective consent. Inversely, when the child cannot give consent, i.e. she was unconscious, or that it was committed through force or intimidation, the s*xual conduct must be prosecuted under the RPC.
The Supreme Court ruled, too, that selling illegal drugs to a minor is always an act inimical to the child’s development and well-being. Such act is punishable as child abuse under Sec. 10(a) of R.A. No. 7610.
Read the full text of the decision: https://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/260233-and-266039-jeffrey-gramatica-y-laurista-vs-people-of-the-philippines-people-of-the-philippines-vs-###266039/
