CASE DIGEST
GRAMATICA y LAURISTA v. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES
[G.R. No. 260233 & G.R. No. 266039, August 12, 2025]
EN BANC, INTING, J.
Child Abuse; Republic Act No.
7610; Section 5(b); Acts of Lasciviousness (Article 336, RPC); Semblance of
Consent; Coercion or Influence vs. Force or Intimidation; Section 10(a) Child
Abuse; Sale of Dangerous Drugs to Minors
Section
5(b) of Republic Act No. 7610 punishes an adult who commits sexual intercourse
or lascivious conduct with a child who “indulges” or “engages” in such conduct
— language that presupposes at least a semblance of consent on the part of the
child, vitiated by the coercion or influence of the adult. Where the lascivious
act is accomplished through force or intimidation, or where the child is
asleep, unconscious, or otherwise unaware and no semblance of consent exists,
the proper charge is acts of lasciviousness under Article 336 of the Revised
Penal Code. Republic Act No. 7610 and the Revised Penal Code occupy different
spheres of application and were enacted to complement, not to supplant, each
other; they were never meant to operate simultaneously in each and every case
of sexual abuse committed against a minor. Quimvel v. People and People v.
Tulagan are clarified accordingly. Separately, the sale of dangerous drugs to a
minor is punishable as child abuse under Section 10(a) of Republic Act No. 7610,
coercion or intimidation not being a material element thereof.
These are two cases consolidated by the Court because both required a definitive ruling
on when Republic Act No. (RA) 7610 applies to lascivious acts committed against
a minor, and when the Revised Penal Code (RPC) governs instead.
In G.R. No. 260233, petitioner Jeffrey Gramatica y Laurista was charged with the sale of dangerous drugs under RA 9165 and with several violations of RA 7610 involving minors AAA and BBB. The evidence showed that AAA and BBB, both minors, had become dependent on shabu and that Gramatica supplied them with the drug. BBB, then 14 years old, engaged in sexual intercourse with Gramatica in exchange for shabu sometime between the second and last weeks of June 2015. The anomaly surfaced when AAA went missing and the police, acting on the report of her family, found her inside Gramatica’s residence, where he was arrested. Medical examination confirmed that both girls had engaged in sexual activity.
The Regional Trial Court (RTC) acquitted Gramatica of the illegal sale of dangerous drugs and of one count of child abuse for insufficiency of evidence, but convicted him of violation of Section 5(b) of RA 7610 with respect to BBB and of violation of Section 10(a) of RA 7610 with respect to AAA. The Court of Appeals (CA) affirmed both convictions with modification as to the damages awarded.
In G.R. No. 266039, accused-appellant XXX266039, then 62 years old, was charged with lascivious conduct under Section 5(b) of RA 7610 committed against his own granddaughter CCC, who was 17 years old at the time. In the early morning of August 24, 2018, while CCC was asleep, XXX266039 touched her breasts and her private part. CCC was unaware of the acts and did not in any manner participate in or acquiesce to them. The RTC convicted him of lascivious conduct under Section 5(b) of RA 7610, and the CA affirmed the conviction with modification as to the penalty and the damages.
Both cases were elevated to the Supreme Court,
which consolidated them and resolved them En
Banc.
Whether
Gramatica is criminally liable under Section 5(b) of RA 7610 for having sexual
intercourse with the minor BBB in exchange for shabu.
YES. The Court sustained the conviction. Section 5(b)
of RA 7610 punishes any person who commits sexual intercourse or lascivious
conduct with a child exploited in prostitution or subjected to other sexual
abuse. BBB, a 14-year-old, engaged in sexual intercourse with Gramatica for a consideration — shabu — which
squarely places her within the class of children exploited in prostitution. The
consent of the child is immaterial;
a minor in that situation is legally incapable of giving valid consent, and the
exchange of sexual intercourse for drugs is precisely the exploitation that
Section 5(b) was designed to punish. The Court affirmed the indeterminate
penalty imposed and the award of PHP
50,000.00 each as civil indemnity, moral damages, and exemplary damages in
favor of BBB, together with a fine of PHP 15,000.00, all monetary awards to
earn legal interest at six percent (6%) per annum from finality until fully
paid.
Whether
the sale of shabu to a minor constitutes child abuse punishable under Section
10(a) of RA 7610.
YES. Section 10(a) of RA 7610 punishes any other acts of child abuse, cruelty, or exploitation, or being responsible for other conditions prejudicial to the child’s development. Child abuse is statutorily defined to include any act by deeds or words which debases, degrades, or demeans the intrinsic worth and dignity of a child as a human being. Coercion or intimidation is not a material element of the offense.
The Court held that Gramatica’s act of selling shabu to the minor AAA falls within this
definition. The sale of dangerous drugs is prohibited
per se and is inherently destructive of a child’s physical, mental, and
emotional development. By supplying shabu
to a minor, the offender denies the child the right to grow up in a safe,
wholesome, and drug-free environment, exploits the child’s vulnerability, and
reduces the child to a mere object of profit rather than a person of inherent
worth. Such conduct debases, degrades, and demeans the intrinsic dignity of the
child and is therefore punishable as child abuse under Section 10(a). The Court
awarded AAA PHP 20,000.00 as moral damages and PHP 20,000.00 as exemplary
damages, with legal interest at six percent (6%) per annum from finality until
fully paid, and referred both minors to the Department of Social Welfare and
Development and/or the Department of Health for evaluation and appropriate
treatment or rehabilitation.
Whether
XXX266039 is liable for lascivious conduct under Section 5(b) of RA 7610 for
committing lascivious acts upon his 17-year-old granddaughter while she was
asleep.
NO. The Court affirmed the conviction but modified the nomenclature of the offense from lascivious conduct under Section 5(b) of RA 7610 to acts of lasciviousness under Article 336 of the Revised Penal Code, with a corresponding modification of the penalty.
The Court anchored the distinction on the text of the law itself. Section 5 of RA 7610 speaks of children who “indulge in sexual intercourse or lascivious conduct” for money, profit, or any other consideration, or “due to the coercion or influence of any adult, syndicate or group.” The word “indulge” connotes a yielding to inclination or a gratification of desires. Its implementing rules, in turn, define sexual abuse as the employment, use, persuasion, inducement, enticement, or coercion of a child to “engage in” sexual conduct. Both formulations presuppose active participation by the child — that is, the presence, or at the very least the semblance, of consent, albeit one that is legally defective because it was procured through the coercion or influence of an adult. It is this defective consent that supplies the reason for the heavier penalty under RA 7610.
Where that element is absent, RA 7610 has no
application. CCC was asleep when the
lascivious acts were committed upon her. She neither indulged nor engaged in
any sexual conduct; she was not persuaded, induced, enticed, or coerced into
participating in anything, because she was entirely unaware of what was being
done to her. There being no semblance of
consent to speak of, she cannot be considered a child “exploited in
prostitution or subjected to other sexual abuse” within the contemplation of
Section 5(b). Applying People v. Abello,
RA 7610 is a special law directed at a particular class of children, and the
prosecution must establish that the victim truly belongs to that class; any
doubt on the matter must be resolved in favor of the accused. The proper charge
is therefore acts of lasciviousness under Article 336 of the RPC, which
precisely covers lascivious acts committed by using force or intimidation, or when the offended party is deprived of
reason or otherwise unconscious.
Whether
all lascivious acts committed against minors aged 12 years old and above but
below 18 years old must be prosecuted under RA 7610, as Quimvel v. People and
People v. Tulagan had been understood to require.
NO. The Court took the occasion to clarify both pronouncements, which it observed had sown confusion in the lower courts.
In Quimvel v. People, the Court stated that “coercion and influence” as used in RA 7610 are broad enough to include “force and intimidation” under the RPC. The Court clarified that this pronouncement was context-specific: it was made in resolving whether the Information there was sufficient, and it should not be construed as a categorical ruling eliminating the distinction between acts of lasciviousness under the RPC and lascivious conduct under RA 7610.
In People v. Tulagan, the Court sought to harmonize the two laws and declared that it was no longer necessary to examine whether the evidence established “coercion or influence” as distinguished from “force or intimidation.” The Court clarified that Tulagan cannot be read as dispensing altogether with the statutory element of the child’s participation. What Tulagan settled was the proper nomenclature and penalty once RA 7610 is found applicable; it did not authorize the automatic application of RA 7610 to every lascivious act committed against a minor.
Resolving the matter definitively, the Court ruled that not all cases of acts of lasciviousness committed against minors aged 12 years old and above but below 18 years old should be prosecuted under RA 7610; the application of that law must be confined to cases where the minor is in fact subjected to sexual abuse as the statute defines it. RA 7610 and the RPC, as amended, have different spheres of application and exist to complement each other so that no gaps are left in our criminal laws. They were not meant to operate simultaneously in each and every case of sexual abuse committed against a minor.
The Court found confirmation in the legislative
history of the law. In sponsoring Senate Bill No. 1209, Senator Jose D. Lina,
Jr. explained that the measure was “intended to complement provisions of the Revised Penal Code where the crimes
committed are those which lead children to prostitution and sexual abuse,” and
that it “in no way affects the Revised Penal Code provision on acts of
lasciviousness or qualified seduction.” The repeated use of the word
“complement” demonstrates that Congress never intended RA 7610 to repeal
Article 336 of the RPC.
No comments:
Post a Comment