Distinction between rape and sexual abuse (2)

X was charged with and convicted of sexual abuse under Section 5, Article III of Republic Act No. 7610 (Special Protection of Children Against Abuse, Exploitation and Discrimination Act). He was the teacher of the aggrieved party, who was then 14-years-old. During trial the child testified that the accused had sexual intercourse with her.

The accused elevated the matter to the Supreme Court. The Highest Court upheld the conviction.

It decreed, “In the present case, the prosecution both alleged and proved that BBB was a child in EPSOSA. The criminal information in Criminal Case No. 15-CR-10797 specifically indicated that BBB ‘is deemed under the law to be a child exploited in prostitution or other sexual abuse as she indulged in sexual intercourse or lascivious conduct for some consideration.’ She also candidly testified that she agreed to have sexual intercourse with Gramatica in exchange for shabu.

“Under the circumstances, BBB engaged in sexual intercourse with Gramatica for a consideration. This is precisely the situation contemplated by the law and covered by the definition of prostitution. Unlike rape, consent is immaterial here as the mere act of having sexual intercourse or committing lascivious conduct with a child who is exploited in prostitution or subjected to sexual abuse constitutes a violation of the law.

“While BBB may have agreed to have sex with Gramatica, the latter is nevertheless criminally liable considering that BBB, then 14 years old, was a minor who engaged in prostitution at the time of their sexual congress. Simply stated, sexual intercourse with a victim who is under 12 years of age (now under 16 years old, following Republic Act 11648) or is demented is always statutory rape and an accused will be prosecuted under Article 266-A, paragraph 1(d), of the Revised Penal Code, as amended by Republic Act 8353.

“On the other hand, as in the present case, if the victim is 12 years old (now at least 16 years old, following Republic Act 11648) or less than 18 and is deemed to be a child ‘exploited to prostitution and other sexual abuse’ because she agreed to the sexual intercourse ‘for money, profit or any other consideration or due to coercion or influence of any adult, syndicate or group,’ the crime could not be rape under the Revised Penal Code as there is consent.

“Instead, the offender should be penalized under Section 5(b) of Republic Act 7610. The law, in effect, acknowledges that minors subjected to such circumstances may have consented to the act or the transaction. Still, their consent cannot be deemed free, genuine and fully informed.

“Accordingly, the law recognizes the child’s inherent vulnerability and the exploitative nature of the situation. Clearly, the terms ‘indulge’ in Section 5, Article III of Republic Act 7610 and ‘engage’ in Section 2(g) of the Rules and Regulations on the Reporting and Investigation of Child Abuse Cases connote consent or permission and that the victim actively participated in the sexual act because of some factors, i.e., employment, use, persuasion, inducement, enticement, or coercion exerted by the abuser.

“Thus, to convict an accused under Section 5 of Republic Act 7610, the victim must indulge or engage 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.

“In the case at bench, it is undisputed that accused-appellant’s actions towards AAA267860 are within the definition of Sexual Abuse under Section 5(b) of Republic Act 7610, considering that he influenced and persuaded AAA267860 (14-year-old minor) to have sexual intercourse with him on two occasions, subjecting her to sexual abuse other than prostitution.

“The prosecution sufficiently alleged and proved the circumstances of Sexual Abuse under Section 5(b) of Republic Act 7610.”

The facts and quoted redacted portion of the decision are from SC G.R. 267860 (3 February 2026).