Mere act of sexual intercourse = child abuse


SECOND DIVISION: [G.R. No. 237599, July 04, 2018] AIRA CAMO Y DIAZ VERSUS PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES.

After reviewing the Petition and its annexes, including the Court of Appeals (CA) Decision[1] dated August 31, 2017 and Resolution[2] dated February 9, 2018 in CA-G.R. CR No. 39000, the Court RESOLVES to DENY the instant Petition and AFFIRM the Decision and Resolution of the CA.

First, on the claim that AAA consented to the acts complained of, the Court ruled in the case of Malto v. People[3] that consent is immaterial in cases involving violation of Section 5, Article III of Republic Act No. (RA) 7610. 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 the offense. It is malum prohibitum, an evil that is proscribed.[4]

This is on the rationale that she can easily be the victim of fraud as she is not capable of fully understanding or knowing the nature or import of her actions. The State, as parens patriae, is under the obligation to minimize the risk of harm to those who, because of their minority, are as yet unable to take care of themselves fully.[5] Those of tender years deserve its protection.[6]

Second, on the claim that AAA is not a "child subjected to other sexual abuse", the Court en banc ruled in the case of Quimvel v. People[7] that the very definition of "child abuse" under Section 3(b) of RA 7610 does not require that the victim suffer a separate and distinct act of sexual abuse aside from the act complained of. For it refers to the maltreatment, whether habitual or not, of the child. Thus, a violation of Section 5(b) of RA 7610 occurs even though the accused committed sexual abuse against the child victim only once, even without a prior sexual affront.Thus, we find that the CA did not commit any reversible error in affirming the conviction of petitioner for violation of Section 5(b) of RA 7610.

SO ORDERED.

[1] Rollo, pp. 29-43. Penned by Associate Justice Priscilla J. Baltazar-Padilla, with Associate Justices Eduardo B. Peralta, Jr. and Pedro B. Corales concurring.

[2] Id. at 45-46.

[3] 560 Phil. 119(2007).

[4] Id. at 139.

[5] Id. at 139-140, citing People v. Baylon, 156 Phil. 87, 95 (1974).

[6] Id. at 140, citing People v. Baylon, id. at 95.

[7] G.R. No. 214497, April 18, 2017, 823 SCRA 192, 238-239.