https://prezi.

com/m4i0letfuf_3/ra-7610/
BAR QUESTIONS
Question
CHILD ABUSE; RA 7610 (2004)

Mrs. MNA was charged with child abuse. It appears from the evidence that she failed to give immediately the
required medical attention to her adopted child, BPO, when he was accidentally bumped by her car, resulting in
his head injuries and impaired vision that could lead to night blindness. The accused, according to the social
worker on the case, used to whip him when he failed to come home on time from school. Also, to punish him for
carelessness in washing dishes, she sometimes sent him to bed without supper. She moved to quash the
charge on the ground that there is no evidence she maltreated her adopted child habitually. She added that the
accident was caused by her driver's negligence. She did punish her ward for naughtiness or
carelessness, but only mildly. Is her motion meritorious? Reason briefly.
 Answer
No, the motion to quash is not meritorious. It is not necessary that movant's maltreatment of a child be "habitual"
to constitute child abuse. The wrongful acts penalized as "Child Abuse" under Rep. Act No. 7610 refers to the
maltreatment of the child, "whether habitual or not": this is expressly stated in Sec. 2(b) of the said Law. Mrs.
MNA should be liable for child abuse.
Question
Child Abuse; RA 7610 (2006)

Eduardo Quintos, a widower for the past 10 years, felt that his retirement at the age of 70 gave him the
opportunity to engage in his favorite pastime — voyeurism. If not using his high-powered binoculars to peep at
his neighbor's homes and domestic activities, his second choice was to follow sweet young girls. One day, he
trailed a teenage girl up to the LRT station at EDSA-Buendia. While ascending the stairs, he stayed one step
behind her and in a moment of bravado, placed his hand on her left hip and gently massaged it. She screamed
and shouted for help. Eduardo was arrested and charged with acts of lasciviousness. Is the designation of the
crime correct?
 Answer
The crime should be Other Acts of Child Abuse under Section 10 of RA. 7610, par. b of Section 3 that refers to
child abuse committed by any act, deeds or words which debases, degrades or demeans the intrinsic worth and
dignity of a child as a human being. In relation thereto, Section 10 provides criminal liability for other acts of child
abuse, cruelty or exploitation, or for other conditions prejudicial to the child's development. The reaction of the
victim, screaming for help upon the occurrence of the touching indicates that she perceived her dignity was
being debased or violated.
Question
RA 7610 – Child Exploitation (2006)

Aling Maria received an urgent telephone call from Junior, her eldest son, asking for P2,000.00 to complete his
semestral tuition fees preparatory to his final exams in Commerce. Distressed and disturbed, she borrowed
money from her compadre Mang Juan with the assurance to pay him within 2 months. Two months lapsed but
Aling Maria failed to settle her obligation. Mang Juan told Aling Maria that she does not have to pay the loan if
she will allow her youngest 10-year old daughter Annie to work as a housemaid in his house for 2 months at
Pl,000.00 a month. Despite Aling Maria's objection, Mang Juan insisted and brought Annie to his house to work
as a maid.

1. Was a crime committed by Mang Juan when he brought Annie to his house as a maid for the purpose of
repaying her mother's loan?
 Answer
Yes. Mang Juan committed the crime of exploitation of child labor which is committed by any persons who under
the pretext of reimbursing himself of a debt incurred by an ascendant, guardian, or person entrusted with the
custody of a minor, shall, against the latter's will, retain him in his service (Art. 273, Revised Penal Code). He
can also be liable as an employer for the employment of a minor below 15 yrs. old, under Sec. 12, Art. 8 of RA.
7610.
Question
RA 7610 – Child Exploitation (2006)

Aling Maria received an urgent telephone call from Junior, her eldest son, asking for P2,000.00 to complete his
semestral tuition fees preparatory to his final exams in Commerce. Distressed and disturbed, she borrowed
money from her compadre Mang Juan with the assurance to pay him within 2 months. Two months lapsed but
Aling Maria failed to settle her obligation. Mang Juan told Aling Maria that she does not have to pay the loan if
she will allow her youngest 10-year old daughter Annie to work as a housemaid in his house for 2 months at
Pl,000.00 a month. Despite Aling Maria's objection, Mang Juan insisted and brought Annie to his house to work
as a maid.

2. If Aling Maria herself was made to work as a house-maid in Mang Juan's household to pay her loan, did he
commit a crime?
 Answer
Yes. Mang Juan committed the crime of involuntary servitude for rendering services under compulsion and
payment of debts. This is committed by any person who, in order to require or enforce the payment of a debt,
shall compel the debtor to work for him, against his will, as a household servant or farm laborer (Art. 274,
Revised Penal Code)
Question
Facts:
One of the accused (a woman), who at that time was heavily pregnant, told her 14-year old younger sister:
"Paganon ka muna kay Kuya mo kasi baka daw tamaan yung ulo ng bata."
The younger sister objected saying: "Bakit ako po yung aanuhin eh hindi naman ako po yung asawa nya.“ The
woman was referring to her common-law partner who wanted to have sex with her 14-year old sister. He could
not have engaged sex with his partner since the latter was pregnant.
The older sister led the victim to a room where her partner (the other accused) was waiting. The young girl was
laid in bed and the accused (the live in partner) inserted his penis in her vagina while her older sister was
holding her hands. The male accused then started the pumping motion until he reached his climax. The young
girl protested. Both accused were charged with Sexual abuse under Section 5(b), RA 7610.

Issue:
Is the charge correct? What is the proper crime, Rape under the Revised Penal Code or Sexual abuse.
 Answer
The Court in People v. Abay (2009), People v. Pangilinan (2011) and People v. Tubillo (2017) adopted "Focus of
Evidence" approach in determining the proper crime in cases of sexual intercourse with a minor.

In those cases, it was mandated that trial courts should examine the evidence presented by the prosecution to
determine whether rape under the Revised Penal Code or sexual abuse under RA 7610.

The Court said that if force or intimidation was used by the accused, the proper crime is rape. On the other
hand, if there is coercion or influence, the proper crime is sexual abuse.

However, this approach was short-lived. In 2018, the Court, in People v..Ejercito, abandoned the "Focus of
Evidence" approach. It said that, whenever a minor is a victim, rape should be the proper crime. RA 8353, the
new Anti-Rape Law, being more recent than RA 7610 should be uniformly applied in cases involving sexual
intercourse committed against minors and not Section 5(b), RA 7610. The law deals specifically with rape.
 Answer
Since then, the Court has been consistent in applying the ruling in subsequent cases, particularly Tulagan
(2019), Del Prado (2022), and recently in YYY and XXX (2023).

In YYY and XXX, the Court modified the conviction of sexual abuse to rape applying Ejercito and other cases. In
the said case, the older sister and her common law partner are liable for rape. She was a principal by direct
participation when she held the hands of the victim while her co-accused (live-in partner) was on the top of the
victim and doing the pumping motion. The individual participation of each perpetrator points to a joint purpose
and criminal design. (People v. YYY and XXX, Aug. 2023)