The Supreme Court (SC) has laid down guidelines to ensure the proper prosecution of lascivious conduct involving minors, clarifying when cases fall under Republic Act No. 7610 and when they should be charged under the Revised Penal Code (RPC).
In a decision penned by Associate Justice Henri Jean Paul B. Inting, the Court En Banc distinguished between cases involving “defective consent” and those involving the absence of consent, emphasizing that the applicable law depends on the nature of the minor’s participation in the act.
“The Court now defines the distinction: if the child ‘indulges’ or ‘engages’ in the sexual act—meaning there is consent, albeit defective—the crime is Sexual Abuse under Section 5(b) of R.A. No. 7610. However, if the sexual act is committed through force, threat, or intimidation, or when the victim is deprived of reason or otherwise unconscious, the crime is Acts of Lasciviousness under Article 336 of the RPC,” the Court said.
The ruling clarifies the scope of lascivious conduct under the child abuse law in relation to the RPC, aiming to address confusion in the application of overlapping criminal provisions and ensure consistent prosecution of offenses involving minors.
GUIDELINES ON PROSECUTION OF LASCIVIOUS CONDUCT CASES
The Court laid down the following guidelines:
- Coverage of R.A. 7610 — Section 5(b) applies to minors aged 16 to below 18 who are subjected to sexual abuse.
- Defective consent requirement — The law covers situations where the minor appears to “indulge” or agree, but such consent is vitiated by coercion, influence, or moral ascendancy.
- Exclusion of force-based acts — R.A. 7610 does not apply when the act involves force, intimidation, fraud, deprivation of reason, unconsciousness, or grave abuse of authority; such cases fall under the Revised Penal Code.
- Application to younger minors and other offenses — If the victim is under 12 or under 16 and the case does not fall under Section 5(b), the proper charge may be rape or acts of lasciviousness under the Revised Penal Code.
The Court emphasized that these distinctions ensure that R.A. 7610 complements, rather than replaces, the RPC by covering cases of exploitation not otherwise addressed by general penal law.
CASE BACKGROUND AND RULING
The ruling stemmed from the consolidation of two cases involving three minors.
Jeffrey L. Gramatica was charged under RA 7610 for engaging in sexual acts with a 14-year-old minor in exchange for illegal drugs, while a 62-year-old grandfather was charged under the same law for touching his 17-year-old granddaughter while she was asleep. Both were convicted under Section 5(b) by the lower courts.
The issue before the Court was whether lewd acts against a minor who is unconscious fall under “sexual abuse” in RA 7610 or “acts of lasciviousness” under the RPC.
The SC affirmed Gramatica’s conviction, finding that the victim was exploited and induced to participate in the act. However, it modified the second conviction, ruling that the proper offense was Acts of Lasciviousness under Article 336 of the RPC, since the victim was asleep and could not have “indulged” in the act as required under RA 7610.
The Court stressed that where there is no participation or “indulgence,” the offense falls under the RPC, and called on Congress to review existing laws to strengthen child protection.
Follow Tan Briones & Associates on LinkedIn for more legal updates and law-related articles.
