MICHAEL JOHN Z. MALTO v. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES (G.R. No.

164733, September 21, 2007)

Doctrine: The sweetheart theory applies in acts of lasciviousness and rape, felonies committed against or without the consent of the
victim. It operates on the theory that the sexual act was consensual. It requires proof that the accused and the victim were lovers and that
she consented to the sexual relations. However, this theory cannot be invoked in cases of child prostitution and other sexual abuse
prosecuted under Section 5, Article III of RA 7610.
Focus Topics: Abuse; Minors and Incapacitated; Parens Patriae; Government; Elements; State
Whereas, mankind owes to the child the best it has to give.
FACTS: Sometime during the month of November 1997 to 1998, Malto seduced his student, AAA, a minor, to indulge in sexual
intercourse several times with him. Prior to the incident, petitioner and AAA had a “mutual understanding” and became sweethearts.
Pressured and afraid of the petitioner’s threat to end their relationship, AAA succumbed and both had sexual intercourse.
Upon discovery of what AAA underwent, AAA’s mother lodged a complaint in the Office of the City Prosecutor of Pasay City. Assistant
City Prosecutor charged the petitioner in an Information a violation of Section 5(a), Article III, RA 7610. During the month of November
1997 up to 1998, in Pasay City, Michael John. Z. Malto, a professor, did then and there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously take advantage
and exert influence, relationship and moral ascendancy and induce and/or seduce his student at Assumption College, complainant, AAA,
a minor of 17 years old, to indulge in sexual intercourse and lascivious conduct for several times with him as in fact said accused has
carnal knowledge.
The trial court found the evidence for the prosecution sufficient to sustain petitioner’s conviction and rendered a decision finding petitioner
guilty beyond reasonable doubt for violation of Article III, Section 5(a), par. 3 of RA 7610, as amended and sentenced him to  reclusion
temporal.
In a decision, the appellate court affirmed his conviction even if it found that his acts were not covered by paragraph (a) but by paragraph
(b) of Section 5, Article III of RA 7610; and thereby sentenced to an indeterminate penalty prision mayor.
Advertisements

ISSUEL: Whether or not the CA erred in sustaining petitioner’s conviction on the grounds that there was no rape committed since their
sexual intercourse was consensual by reason of their “sweetheart” relationship

HELD: NEGATIVE. Petitioner is wrong.

Petitioner violated Section 5(b), Article III of RA 7610, as amended. The first element of Section 5(b), Article III of RA 7610 pertains to the
act or acts committed by the accused. The second element refers to the state or condition of the offended party. The third element
corresponds to the minority or age of the offended party. Since all three elements of the crime were present, the conviction of petitioner
was proper.
Consent of the child is immaterial in criminal cases involving violation of Sec. 5, Art. III of RA 7610. Petitioner claims that AAA welcomed
his kisses and touches and consented to have sexual intercourse with him. They engaged in these acts out of mutual love and affection.
The sweetheart theory applies in acts of lasciviousness and rape, felonies committed against or without the consent of the victim. It
operates on the theory that the sexual act was consensual. It requires proof that the accused and the victim were lovers and that she
consented to the sexual relations.30
For purposes of sexual intercourse and lascivious conduct in child abuse cases under RA 7610, the sweetheart defense is
unacceptable. A child exploited in prostitution or subjected to other sexual abuse cannot validly give consent to sexual intercourse with
another person.
A child cannot give consent to a contract under our civil laws. 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. Those of tender
years deserve its protection.
The harm which results from a child’s bad decision in a sexual encounter may be infinitely more damaging to her than a bad business
deal. Thus, the law should protect her from the harmful consequences of her attempts at adult sexual behavior. For this reason, a child
should not be deemed to have validly consented to adult sexual activity and to surrender herself in the act of ultimate physical intimacy
under a law which seeks to afford her special protection against abuse, exploitation and discrimination. In other words, a child is
presumed by law to be incapable of giving rational consent to any lascivious act or sexual intercourse.
To provide special protection to children from all forms of abuse, neglect, cruelty, exploitation and discrimination, and other conditions
prejudicial to their development; provide sanctions for their commission and carry out a program for prevention and deterrence of and
crisis intervention in situations of child abuse, exploitation, and discrimination. [A]s well as to intervene on behalf of the child when  the
parents, guardian, teacher or person having care or custody of the child fails or is unable to protect the child against abuse, exploitation,
and discrimination or when such acts against the child are committed by the said parent, guardian, teacher or person having care and
custody of the same.
The best interest of children shall be the paramount consideration in all actions concerning them, whether undertaken by public or private
social welfare institutions, courts of law, administrative authorities, and legislative bodies, consistent with the principles of First Call for
Children as enunciated in the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child. Every effort shall be exerted to promote the welfare
of children and enhance their opportunities for a useful and happy life.
G.R. No. 171863             August 20, 2008
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, petitioner,vs.THE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS (Second Division) and GASPAR
OLAYON, respondents.
1. Gaspar Olayon was charged with 2 counts of violation of Section 10(a) of RA 7610 (AntiChild Abuse Act) for allegedly having sexual
intercourse and committing lewd and lascivious acts upon AAA, then 14 years of age. He was also charged of acts of lasciviousness
against the same victim. 2. He interposed the following as his defense: AAA was his sweetheart; AAA voluntarily went with Olayon to the
house of one Duke Espiritu where the crime was committed; & the sexual relations with AAA were with her consent. 3. In the joint trial for
these 3 offenses, Olayon was acquitted in the charge for acts of lasciviousness but he was convicted of violation of Section 10(a) of RA
7610. Trial court ruled that Olayon cannot escape responsibility because consent is not an accepted defense in this special law. 4. On
appeal, CA reversed the trial court’s decision and acquitted Olayon. REASON: Consensual sexual intercourse with a minor is NOT
classified as child abuse under Section 10 of RA No. 7610. Moreover, for the act of intercourse between Olayon to be considered sexual
abuse [under Section 5], such intercourse should have occurred due to coercion or intimidation. However, these elements were absent as
AAA freely consented to the acts. Issue: WON CA erred in acquitting Olayon? No.  Sexual abuse (as defined under Sec. 5) is a
completely distinct and separate offense from child abuse (as defined under Sec. 10). Sec. 10 refers to acts of child abuse prejudicial to
the child’s development other than child prostitution and other sexual abuse. On the other hand, sexual abuse is defined as including the
employment, use, persuasion, inducement, enticement or coercion of a child to engage in, or assist another person to engage in, sexual
intercourse or lascivious conduct or the molestation, prostitution, or incest with children.  Consensual sexual intercourse or even acts of
lasciviousness with a minor who is 12 years old or older could constitute a violation of Section 5(b) of R.A. No. 7610. For consensual
sexual intercourse or lascivious conduct with a minor, who is not exploited in prostitution, to thus fall within the purview of Section 5(b) of
R.A. No. 7610, persuasion, inducement, enticement or coercion of the child must be present.  If Olayon was charged under Section
5(b), instead of Section 10(a), Olayon would still be acquitted as there was no allegation that an element of the offense (coercion or
influence or intimidation) attended its commission.

RODAN A. BANGAYAN, PETITIONER, VS. PEOPLE (G.R. No. 235610, September 16, 2020) THIRD DIVISION, CARANDANG, J.:

If the accused is in a relationship with a minor (12- but below 18 years old) engages in sexual intercourse with the said minor, can the
accused be held liable for Rape under RPC or Violation of Sec. (5) (b), Art. III of R.A. 7610 for sexual abuse?
Answer: If the minor who engages in sexual intercourse is UNDER 12 YEARS OLD, the accused should be prosecuted for Rape under
335 par. 3 of RPC in relation to RA 7610 but the penalty is reclusion perpetua. It is because Section 5(b) of R.A 7610 qualifies that when
the victim of the sexual abuse is under 12 years of age, the perpetrator shall be prosecuted under the Revised Penal Code. This means
that, REGARDLESS of the presence of any of the circumstances enumerated and CONSENT of victim under 12 years of age, the
perpetrator shall be prosecuted under the Revised Penal Code.
But if the victim is 12 years old or less than 18 and is deemed to be a child "exploited in prostitution and other sexual abuse" because she
AGREED to indulge in sexual intercourse "FOR money, profit or any other consideration or due to coercion or influence of any adult,
syndicate or group," then the crime could NOT be RAPE under the RPC, because this no longer falls under the concept of statutory rape,
and there was consent. But the accused maybe prosecuted and penalized Sec 5 (b) of RA 7610.
On the other hand, the law is noticeably silent with respect to situations where a child is between 12 years old and below 18 years of age
and engages in sexual intercourse NOT - 'for money, profit, or any other consideration or due to the coercion or influence of any adult,
syndicate or group." Had it been the intention of the law to absolutely consider as sexual abuse and punish individuals who engage in
sexual intercourse with "children" or those under 18 years of age, the qualifying circumstances enumerated would not have been included
in Section 5 of R.A. 7610.
Taking into consideration the statutory construction rules that penal laws should be strictly construed against the state and liberally in
favor of the accused, and that every law should be construed in such a way that it will harmonize with existing laws on the same subject
matter, We reconcile the apparent gap in the law by concluding that the qualifying circumstance cited in Section 5(b) of R.A. 7610, which
"punishes sexual intercourse or lascivious conduct not only with a child exploited in prostitution but also with a child subjected to other
sexual abuse," leave room for a child between 12 and 17 years of age to give consent to the sexual act. THEREFORE, the accused who
engages in sexual intercourse with a child, at least 12 and under 18 years of age, and NOT falling under any of these circumstances,
CANNOT BE HELD LIABLE UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF R.A. 7610.
The Supreme Court has clarified that CONSENT OF THE CHILD IS MATERIAL and MAY EVEN BE A DEFENSE in CRIMINAL CASES
involving violation of Section 5, Article III of R.A. No. 7610 WHEN THE OFFENDED PARTY IS TWELVE YEARS OLD OR BELOW 18, or
above 18 under special circumstances. Such consent may be implied from the FAILURE to prove that the said victim engaged in sexual
intercourse either "due to money, profit or any other consideration or due to the coercion or influence of any adult, syndicate or group.The
intendment of the law is to consider the condition and capacity of the child to give consent.
In other words, if the minor child (12- below 18) agreed to have sexual intercourse with an individual and NOT for money, profit or any
other consideration or due to coercion or influence of any adult, syndicate or group," then the crime could NOT be RAPE under the RPC,
because this no longer falls under the concept of statutory rape. CONSENT OF THE CHILD BECOMES MATERIAL and MAY EVEN BE
A DEFENSE in CRIMINAL CASES involving violation of Section 5, Article III of R.A. No. 7610 WHEN THE OFFENDED PARTY IS
TWELVE YEARS OLD OR BELOW 18, or above 18 under special circumstances.
Reference: RODAN A. BANGAYAN, PETITIONER, VS. PEOPLE (G.R. No. 235610, September 16, 2020) THIRD DIVISION,
CARANDANG, J.: