ISIDRO OLIVAREZ, versus G.R. No.

163866
COURT OF APPEALS and
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES,
Respondents. Promulgated:
July 29, 2005
Facts:
The offended party Cristina Elitiong was a 16-year old high school
student who with her brothers were employed by the accused, 64year old Isidro Olivarez, in the making of sampaguita garlands. For
one year she had been reporting for work during weekends at the
residence of the accused. Within the compound and at about three
armslength from the main door of the house was her workplace.At
about 11:30 oclock in the morning of July 20, 1997, Cristina, her
two brothers Macoy and Dodong, and one named Liezel were at
their work when the accused who was near the main door called for
her. She dutifully approached him. The accused asked her if she
had told her mother that he gave her money, and when she said
that she did not, he embraced her and held her breast. The workers
were facing the street so that the two were not seen. He pulled her
to the kitchen and, closing the kitchen door, kissed her on the lips.
She pushed him away and went back to her station. Her brother
Macoy saw her crying when she came out of the house. She did not
say a word, but went to the faucet and washed her face.
The offended party continued to finish the garlands she was
working on, and waited until the afternoon for her wages. When she
arrived at her home, she first told her mother that she no longer
wished to go back. When pressed for a reason, she said basta po
mama ayaw ko ng magtuhog. Finally, she told her mother what
happened.Aurora Elitiong, the mother, accompanied the offended
party to the San Vicente Barangay Hall on July 26 to report the
incident and give a statement. Days later, Cristina gave another
statement to the local police.In the defense version, the offended
party and her brothers had slept overnight in the house of the
accused. When Isidro woke up in the early morning to relieve
himself, he saw the girl sleeping on the sofa. He admonished her to
join her brothers in the basement. He went back to his room and
slept until 8 A.M. Two hours later, at 10 A.M., he left for the Caltex
Service Station which was only a five minute ride from his home by
tricycle. His daughter Analee Olivarez was staying in another house
in the compound and attended a morning mass. When she returned
at 10:30 A.M., she no longer saw her father. Maritess Buen, the

1 | Page

laundrywoman, who was washing clothes outside the kitchen, saw

the accused earlier. By 10 A.M., when she entered the house, he
already left. He returned by noontime.The accused testified that he
was at the Caltex station for two and a half hours waiting for the
shipment of flowers from Pampanga. The goods arrived at 12:15
P.M. He left shortly thereafter and passed by the market before
going home. He arrived at 12:30 P.M. The next several days were
uneventful for him until his laundrywoman Maritess told him that
there was a complaint against him at the barangay office. A
meeting took place between him and the girls family in the
presence of the barangay authorities. The girls mother was
demanding P30,000 for the settlement of the case, but he refused
to cave in and told a barangay official Jaime Ramos that he would
rather see his accusers in court than give a centavo because he did
not commit the crime.
Issue:
WON The Honorable Court of Appeals committed grave abuse of
discretion in not holding that the essential elements in Violation of
Section 5, Article III of Republic Act 7610, which are age of the
offended party and that she is an abused or exploited child as
defined in the law, not having been alleged in the Information,
petitioner/accused cannot be found guilty of said offense and must
be acquitted.
Actions of the courts:
RTC: Found Olivarez guilty of violating Section 5 of R.A. 7610 and
sentenced him to suffer an indeterminate penalty of imprisonment
from eight (8) years and one (1) day of prision mayor as minimum
to seventeen (17) years, four (4) months and one (1) day
of reclusion temporal as maximum, to indemnify the minor Cristina
Elitiong in the amount of P15,000.00 as moral damages and to pay
the costs.
CA: Affirmed RTC
SC: Affirmed CA but with modifications on damages
Ratio:
Section 5, Article III of R.A. 7610 states:

SEC. 5. Child Prostitution and Other Sexual Abuse. Children,

whether male or female, who for money, profit, or any other
consideration or due to the coercion or influence of any adult,
syndicate or group, indulge in sexual intercourse or lascivious
conduct, are deemed to be children exploited in prostitution and
other sexual abuse.
The penalty of reclusion temporal in its medium period to reclusion
perpetua shall be imposed upon the following:
(b) Those who commit the act of sexual intercourse or lascivious
conduct with a child exploited in prostitution or subjected to other
sexual abuse: Provided, That when the victim is under twelve (12)
years of age, the perpetrators shall be prosecuted under Article
335, paragraph 3, for rape and Article 336 of Act No. 3815, as
amended, the Revised Penal Code, for rape or lascivious conduct,
as the case may be: Provided, That the penalty for lascivious
conduct when the victim is under twelve (12) years of age shall be
reclusion temporal in its medium period.
The elements of sexual abuse under Section 5, Article III of R.A.
7610 are as follows:
1. The accused commits the act of sexual intercourse or lascivious
conduct.
2. The said act is performed with a child exploited in prostitution or
subjected to other sexual abuse.
3. The child, whether male or female, is below 18 years of age.
Discussions on the presence of elements
1. The first element obtains in this case. It was established
beyond reasonable doubt that petitioner kissed Cristina and
touched her breasts with lewd designs as inferred from the
nature of the acts themselves and the environmental
circumstances.
2. The second element, i.e., that the act is performed with a
child exploited in prostitution or subjected to other sexual
abuse, is likewise present. As succinctly explained in People
v. Larin:
A child is deemed exploited in prostitution or subjected to
other sexual abuse, when the child indulges in sexual
intercourse or lascivious conduct (a) for money, profit, or

2 | Page

any other consideration; or (b) under the coercion or

influence of any adult, syndicate or group. ...
It must be noted that the law covers not only a situation in
which a child is abused for profit, but also one in which a
child, through coercion or intimidation, engages in lascivious
conduct. (this was reiterated in Amployo vs People)
Thus, a child is deemed subjected to other sexual abuse
when the child indulges in lascivious conduct under the
coercion or influence of any adult. In this case, Cristina was
sexually abused because she was coerced or intimidated by
petitioner to indulge in a lascivious conduct. Furthermore, it
is inconsequential that the sexual abuse occurred only once.
As expressly provided in Section 3 (b) of R.A. 7610, the
abuse may be habitual or not. It must be observed that
Article III of R.A. 7610 is captioned as Child Prostitution and
Other Sexual Abuse because Congress really intended to
cover a situation where the minor may have been coerced
or intimidated into lascivious conduct, not necessarily for
money or profit. The law covers not only child prostitution
but also other forms of sexual abuse.
3. Petitioner was furnished a copy of the Complaint which was
mentioned in the information, hence he was adequately
informed of the age of the complainant. The prosecution has
also established the minority of the offended party through
competent evidence. Cristina testified that she was 16 years
old and a certification from the Office of the Local Registrar
of San Pedro, Laguna was presented showing that she was
born on October 17, 1980. The third element of sexual
abuse is therefore present.
On the issue about the information as alleged by Olivarez:
In all criminal prosecutions, the accused is entitled to be informed
of the nature and cause of the accusation against him. A complaint
is sufficient if it states the name of the accused; the designation of
the offense given by the statute; the acts or omissions complained
of as constituting the offense; the name of the offended party; the
approximate date of the commission of the offense; and the place
where the offense was committed.The complaint or information
shall state the designation of the offense given by the statute, aver
the acts or omissions constituting the offense, and specify its
qualifying and aggravating circumstances. If there is no designation

of the offense, reference shall be made to the section or subsection

of the statute punishing it.[22] The acts or omissions complained of
as constituting the offense and the qualifying and aggravating
circumstances must be stated in ordinary and concise language
and not necessarily in the language used in the statute but in terms
sufficient to enable a person of common understanding to know
what offense is being charged as well as its qualifying and
aggravating circumstances and for the court to pronounce
judgment.In the present case, the Court of Appeals found the
information to be sufficient. Relying on the principle laid down in
People v. Rosare, it held:
Before us is an information for violation of RA 7610 that, as in
Rosare, fails to mention an indispensable element of the offense,
the age of the offended party, but makes allusion to another
document, the sworn complaint of the offended party, and declares
it to be the basis upon which the information was filed. This
instrument is the complaint filed by the offended party with the
Municipal Trial Court of San Pedro, Laguna in which she stated that
she was 16 years old at the time of the offense. It forms part of the
initial records of the case and comes before the posting of bail and
entry of the plea of not guilty before the RTC. It appears that after
the charge was filed with the MTC, and as the preliminary
investigation went underway, the accused filed a manifestation
stating that he had filed a counter-affidavit to the charge and
reserved the right to file a motion to quash the information if it was
filed. The MTC found probable cause against him and elevated the
records to the provincial prosecutor for filing of the information. A
complaint is under the Rules one of the two charging instruments
for the offense of which the accused was tried and convicted here.
While the criminal action was instituted by the complaint of the
offended party, the information signed only by the fiscal ushered in
the formal trial process. But both are accusations in writing against
the accused and serve the purpose of enabling him to take the
necessary legal steps for his defense. What is important is that the
information states that the accused is being charged of an offense
under RA 7610 based on the complaint of the offended party, to
which the accused had adequately responded. Under these
conditions, the accused was fully apprised of the accusation against
him. The purpose and objective of the constitutional mandate are
discharged and satisfied. The accused may not be said to be taken
by surprise by the failure of the information to state the age of the
offended party, when he had received the initiatory complaint
where he was told how old the offended party was.

3 | Page

Dispositive:
WHEREFORE, the petition is DENIED. The decision of the Court of
Appeals dated January 9, 2004 in CA-G.R. CR No. 22860 and its
resolution
dated
June
4,
2004,
are AFFIRMED
with
MODIFICATION. In addition to the award of P15,000.00 as moral
damages, petitioner Isidro Olivarez is also ordered to pay a fine in
the amount of P15,000.00.

MICHAEL JOHN Z. MALTO v. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES

G.R. No. 164733, September 21, 2007
Corona, J.
Doctrine: The sweetheart theory cannot be invoked for purposes
of sexual intercourse and lascivious conduct in child abuse cases
under RA 7610. Consent is immaterial because the mere act of
having sexual intercourse or committing lascivious conduct with a
child who is subjected to sexual abuse constitutes the offense.
Moreover, a child is presumed by law to be incapable of giving
rational consent to any lascivious act or sexual intercourse.
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 petitioners threat to end their relationship, AAA
succumbed and both had sexual intercourse.
Upon discovery of what AAA underwent, AAAs 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 petitioners 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.
Issue:
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. NO
Ratio:
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

4 | Page

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 childs 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. 182835

April 20, 2010

RUSTAN ANG y PASCUA, Petitioner,

vs.

5 | Page

THE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS and IRISH

SAGUD, Respondents.
Facts:
Complainant Irish Sagud (Irish) and accused Rustan were
classmates at Wesleyan University in Aurora Province. Rustan
courted Irish and they became "on-and-off" sweethearts towards
the end of 2004. When Irish learned afterwards that Rustan had
taken a live-in partner (now his wife), whom he had gotten
pregnant, Irish broke up with him.In the early morning of June 5,
2005, Irish received through multimedia message service (MMS) a
picture of a naked woman with spread legs and with Irishs face
superimposed on the figure (Exhibit A).2 The senders cellphone
number, stated in the message, was 0921-8084768, one of the
numbers that Rustan used. Irish surmised that he copied the
picture of her face from a shot he took when they were in Baguio in
2003. After she got the obscene picture, Irish got other text
messages from Rustan. He boasted that it would be easy for him to
create similarly scandalous pictures of her. And he threatened to
spread the picture he sent through the internet. One of the
messages he sent to Irish, written in text messaging shorthand,
read: "Madali lang ikalat yun, my chatrum ang tarlac rayt pwede
ring send sa lahat ng chatter."Irish sought the help of the vice
mayor of Maria Aurora who referred her to the police. Under police
supervision, Irish contacted Rustan through the cellphone numbers
he used in sending the picture and his text messages. Irish asked
Rustan to meet her at the Lorentess Resort in Brgy. Ramada, Maria
Aurora, and he did. He came in a motorcycle. After parking it, he
walked towards Irish but the waiting police officers intercepted and
arrested him. They searched him and seized his Sony Ericsson P900
cellphone and several SIM cards.
For his part, Rustan admitted having courted Irish. He began
visiting her in Tarlac in October 2003 and their relation lasted until
December of that year. He claimed that after their relation ended,
Irish wanted reconciliation. They met in December 2004 but, after
he told her that his girlfriend at that time (later his wife) was
already pregnant, Irish walked out on him.Rustan further claims
that he also went to Lorentess because Irish asked him to help her

identify a prankster who was sending her malicious text messages.

Rustan got the senders number and, pretending to be Irish,
contacted the person. Rustan claims that he got back obscene
messages from the prankster, which he forwarded to Irish from his
cellphone. This explained, he said, why the obscene messages
appeared to have originated from his cellphone number. Rustan
claims that it was Irish herself who sent the obscene picture
(Exhibit A) to him. He presented six pictures of a woman whom he
identified as Irish. Michelle Ang (Michelle), Rustans wife, testified
that she was sure Irish sent the six pictures. Michelle claims that
she received the pictures and hid the memory card (Exhibit 8) that
contained them because she was jealous and angry. She did not
want to see anything of Irish. But, while the woman in the pictures
posed in sexy clothing, in none did she appear naked as in Exhibit
A. Further, the face of the woman in Exhibits 2, 4, 5 and 6 could not
be seen. Irish denied that she was the woman in those four
pictures. As for Exhibits 3 and 7, the woman in the picture was fully
dressed.
Issue:
The principal issue in this case is whether or not accused Rustan
sent Irish by cellphone message the picture with her face pasted on
the body of a nude woman, inflicting anguish, psychological
distress, and humiliation on her in violation of Section 5(h) of R.A.
9262.
1. Whether or not a "dating relationship" existed between Rustan
and Irish as this term is defined in R.A. 9262;
2. Whether or not a single act of harassment, like the sending of
the nude picture in this case, already constitutes a violation of
Section 5(h) of R.A. 9262.

Section 3(a) of R.A. 9262 provides that violence against women

includes an act or acts of a person against a woman with whom he
has or had a sexual or dating relationship. Thus:
SEC. 3. Definition of Terms. As used in this Act,
(a) "Violence against women and their children" refers to
any act or a series of acts committed by any person against
a woman who is his wife, former wife, or against a woman
with whom the person has or had a sexual or dating
relationship, or with whom he has a common child, or
against her child whether legitimate or illegitimate, within or
without the family abode, which result in or is likely to result
in physical, sexual, psychological harm or suffering, or
economic abuse including threats of such acts, battery,
assault, coercion, harassment or arbitrary deprivation of
liberty.
Section 5 identifies the act or acts that constitute violence
against women and these include any form of harassment
that causes substantial emotional or psychological distress
to a woman. Thus:
SEC. 5. Acts of Violence Against Women and Their Children.
The crime of violence against women and their children is
committed through any of the following acts:
h. Engaging in purposeful, knowing, or reckless conduct,
personally or through another, that alarms or causes
substantial emotional or psychological distress to the
woman or her child. This shall include, but not be limited to,
the following acts:
5. Engaging in any form of harassment or violence;

Ratio and Ruling:

The above provisions, taken together, indicate that the elements of

the crime of violence against women through harassment are:
1. The offender has or had a sexual or dating relationship
with the offended woman;

6 | Page

2. The offender, by himself or through another, commits an

act or series of acts of harassment against the woman; and
3. The harassment alarms or causes substantial emotional
or psychological distress to her.
One. The parties to this case agree that the prosecution needed to
prove that accused Rustan had a "dating relationship" with Irish.
Section 3(e) provides that a "dating relationship" includes a
situation where the parties are romantically involved over time and
on a continuing basis during the course of the relationship. Thus:
(e) "Dating relationship" refers to a situation wherein the parties
live as husband and wife without the benefit of marriage or are
romantically involved over time and on a continuing basis during
the course of the relationship. A casual acquaintance or ordinary
socialization between two individuals in a business or social context
is not a dating relationship. (Underscoring supplied.)
Here, Rustan claims that, being "romantically involved," implies
that the offender and the offended woman have or had sexual
relations. According to him, "romance" implies a sexual act. He
cites Websters Comprehensive Dictionary Encyclopedia Edition
which provides a colloquial or informal meaning to the word
"romance" used as a verb, i.e., "to make love; to make love to" as
in "He romanced her."
But it seems clear that the law did not use in its provisions the
colloquial verb "romance" that implies a sexual act. It did not say
that the offender must have "romanced" the offended woman.
Rather, it used the noun "romance" to describe a couples
relationship, i.e., "a love affair."9
R.A. 9262 provides in Section 3 that "violence against women x x x
refers to any act or a series of acts committed by any person
against a woman x x x with whom the person has or had a
sexual or dating relationship." Clearly, the law itself distinguishes a
sexual relationship from a dating relationship. Indeed, Section 3(e)
above defines "dating relationship" while Section 3(f) defines
"sexual relations." The latter "refers to a single sexual act which

7 | Page

may or may not result in the bearing of a common child." The

dating relationship that the law contemplates can, therefore, exist
even without a sexual intercourse taking place between those
involved.
Rustan also claims that since the relationship between Irish and
him was of the "on-and-off" variety (away-bati), their romance
cannot be regarded as having developed "over time and on a
continuing basis." But the two of them were romantically involved,
as Rustan himself admits, from October to December of 2003. That
would be time enough for nurturing a relationship of mutual trust
and love.
An "away-bati" or a fight-and-kiss thing between two lovers is a
common occurrence. Their taking place does not mean that the
romantic relation between the two should be deemed broken up
during periods of misunderstanding. Explaining what "away-bati"
meant, Irish explained that at times, when she could not reply to
Rustans messages, he would get angry at her. That was all. Indeed,
she characterized their three-month romantic relation as
continuous.10
Two. Rustan argues that the one act of sending an offensive picture
should not be considered a form of harassment. He claims that
such would unduly ruin him personally and set a very dangerous
precedent. But Section 3(a) of R.A. 9262 punishes "any act or series
of acts" that constitutes violence against women. This means that a
single act of harassment, which translates into violence, would be
enough. The object of the law is to protect women and children.
Punishing only violence that is repeatedly committed would license
isolated ones.
Rustan alleges that todays women, like Irish, are so used to
obscene communications that her getting one could not possibly
have produced alarm in her or caused her substantial emotional or
psychological distress. He claims having previously exchanged
obscene pictures with Irish such that she was already desensitized
by them.

But, firstly, the RTC which saw and heard Rustan and his wife give
their testimonies was not impressed with their claim that it was
Irish who sent the obscene pictures of herself (Exhibits 2-7). It is
doubtful if the woman in the picture was Irish since her face did not
clearly show on them.
Michelle, Rustans wife, claimed that she deleted several other
pictures that Irish sent, except Exhibits 2 to 7. But her testimony
did not make sense. She said that she did not know that Exhibits 2
to 7 had remained saved after she deleted the pictures. Later,
however, she said that she did not have time to delete them. 11 And,
if she thought that she had deleted all the pictures from the
memory card, then she had no reason at all to keep and hide such
memory card. There would have been nothing to hide. Finally, if she
knew that some pictures remained in the card, there was no reason
for her to keep it for several years, given that as she said she was
too jealous to want to see anything connected to Irish. Thus, the
RTC was correct in not giving credence to her testimony.1avvphi1
Secondly, the Court cannot measure the trauma that Irish
experienced based on Rustans low regard for the alleged moral
sensibilities of todays youth. What is obscene and injurious to an
offended woman can of course only be determined based on the
circumstances of each case. Here, the naked woman on the picture,
her legs spread open and bearing Irishs head and face, was clearly
an obscene picture and, to Irish a revolting and offensive one.
Surely, any woman like Irish, who is not in the pornography trade,
would be scandalized and pained if she sees herself in such a
picture. What makes it further terrifying is that, as Irish testified,
Rustan sent the picture with a threat to post it in the internet for all
to see. That must have given her a nightmare.
Three. Rustan argues that, since he was arrested and certain items
were seized from him without any warrant, the evidence presented
against him should be deemed inadmissible. But the fact is that the
prosecution did not present in evidence either the cellphone or the
SIM cards that the police officers seized from him at the time of his
arrest. The prosecution did not need such items to prove its case.
Exhibit C for the prosecution was but a photograph depicting the

8 | Page

Sony Ericsson P900 cellphone that was used, which cellphone

Rustan admitted owning during the pre-trial conference.
Actually, though, the bulk of the evidence against him consisted in
Irishs testimony that she received the obscene picture and
malicious text messages that the senders cellphone numbers
belonged to Rustan with whom she had been previously in
communication. Indeed, to prove that the cellphone numbers
belonged to Rustan, Irish and the police used such numbers to
summon him to
come
to
Lorentess Resort and
he
12
did. Consequently, the prosecution did not have to present the
confiscated cellphone and SIM cards to prove that Rustan sent
those messages.
Moreover, Rustan admitted having sent the malicious text
messages to Irish.13 His defense was that he himself received those
messages from an unidentified person who was harassing Irish and
he merely forwarded the same to her, using his cellphone. But
Rustan never presented the cellphone number of the unidentified
person who sent the messages to him to authenticate the same.
The RTC did not give credence to such version and neither will this
Court. Besides, it was most unlikely for Irish to pin the things on
Rustan if he had merely tried to help her identify the sender.
Four. Rustan claims that the obscene picture sent to Irish through a
text message constitutes an electronic document. Thus, it should
be authenticated by means of an electronic signature, as provided
under Section 1, Rule 5 of the Rules on Electronic Evidence (A.M.
01-7-01-SC).
But, firstly, Rustan is raising this objection to the admissibility of
the obscene picture, Exhibit A, for the first time before this Court.
The objection is too late since he should have objected to the
admission of the picture on such ground at the time it was offered
in evidence. He should be deemed to have already waived such
ground for objection.14
Besides, the rules he cites do not apply to the present criminal
action. The Rules on Electronic Evidence applies only to civil

actions,
quasi-judicial
proceedings.15

proceedings,

and

administrative

In conclusion, this Court finds that the prosecution has proved each
and every element of the crime charged beyond reasonable doubt.
WHEREFORE, the Court DENIES the petition and AFFIRMS the
decision of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CR 30567 dated January
31, 2008 and its resolution dated April 25, 2008.
SO ORDERED.
DOMINGO V RAYALA
G.R. No. 155831

February 18, 2008

Doctrine
Sexual harassment is an imposition of misplaced superiority
which is enough to dampen an employees spirit and her capacity
for advancement. It affects her sense of judgment; it changes her
life.
The law penalizing sexual harassment in our jurisdiction is RA 7877.
Section 3 thereof defines work-related sexual harassment in this
wise:
Sec.
3.Work,
Education
or
Training-related
Sexual
Harassment Defined. Work, education or training-related sexual
harassment is committed by an employer, manager, supervisor,
agent of the employer, teacher, instructor, professor, coach, trainor,
or any other person who, having authority, influence or moral
ascendancy over another in a work or training or education
environment, demands, requests or otherwise requires any sexual
favor from the other, regardless of whether the demand, request or
requirement for submission is accepted by the object of said Act.
(a) In a work-related or employment environment, sexual
harassment is committed when:
1) The sexual favor is made as a condition in the hiring or in the
employment, re-employment or continued employment of said
individual,
or
in
granting
said
individual
favorable

9 | Page

compensation, terms, conditions, promotions, or privileges; or

the refusal to grant the sexual favor results in limiting,
segregating or classifying the employee which in a way would
discriminate, deprive or diminish employment opportunities or
otherwise adversely affect said employee;
2) The above acts would impair the employees rights or privileges
under existing labor laws; or
3) The above acts would result in an intimidating, hostile, or
offensive environment for the employee.
BRIEF
Before this Court are three Petitions for Review on Certiorari
assailing the October 18, 2002 Resolution of the CAs Former Ninth
Division2 in CA-G.R. SP No. 61026. The Resolution modified the
December 14, 2001 Decision3 of the Court of Appeals Eleventh
Division, which had affirmed the Decision of the Office of the
President (OP) dismissing from the service then National Labor
Relations Commission (NLRC) Chairman Rogelio I. Rayala for
disgraceful and immoral conduct. All three petitions stem from the
same factual antecedents.
FACTS
On November 16, 1998, Ma. Lourdes T. Domingo, then
Stenographic Reporter III at the NLRC, filed a Complaint for sexual
harassment
against
Chairman
Rayala
before
Secretary
BienvenidoLaguesma of the Department of Labor and Employment
(DOLE).
To support the Complaint, Domingo executed an Affidavit narrating
the incidences of sexual harassment complained of, indicating
that:Chairman Rayala, while Domingo is typing a letter, holds and
squeeze the latters shoulders, running his fingers across her neck
and tickling her ear, having inappropriate conversations with her,
giving her money, and making statements with unmistakable
sexual implications.
Domingo filed the Complaint for sexual harassment on the basis of
Administrative Order No. 250, the Rules and Regulations
Implementing RA 7877 in the Department of Labor and
Employment.
Rayala being a presidential appointee, DOLE referred the Complaint
to the OP. The OP, through then Executive Secretary Ronaldo
Zamora, ordered Secretary Laguesma to investigate the allegations

in the Complaint and create a committee for such purpose. The

Committee found Rayala guilty of the offense charged and
recommended the imposition of the minimum penalty provided
under AO 250, which it erroneously stated as suspension for six (6)
months.
Secretary Laguesma submitted a copy of the Committee Report
and Recommendation to the OP, but with the recommendation that
the penalty should be suspension for six (6) months and one (1)
day, in accordance with AO 250.
OP Decision
Chairman Rayala of NLRC is found guilty of the grave offense of
disgraceful and immoral conduct and is hereby DISMISSED from
the service.
CA Decision
It held that there was sufficient evidence on record to create moral
certainty that Rayala committed the acts he was charged with.
Petition Dismissed.
Rayala filed 3 petitions which the SC directed their consolidation.
ISSUE
Whether Chairman Rayala committed sexual harassment
HELD Yes.
It is not necessary that the demand, request or requirement of a
sexual favor be articulated in a categorical oral or written
statement. It may be discerned, with equal certitude, from the acts
of the offender. Holding and squeezing Domingos shoulders,
running his fingers across her neck and tickling her ear, having
inappropriate conversations with her, giving her money allegedly
for school expenses with a promise of future privileges, and making
statements with unmistakable sexual overtones all these acts of
Rayala resound with deafening clarity the unspoken request for a
sexual favor. It is not essential that the demand, request or
requirement be made as a condition for continued employment or
for promotion to a higher position. It is enough that the
respondents acts result in creating an intimidating, hostile or
offensive environment for the employee. That the acts of Rayala
generated an intimidating and hostile environment for Domingo is
clearly shown by the common factual finding of the Investigating
Committee, the OP and the CA that Domingo reported the matter to

10 | P a g e

an officemate and, after the last incident, filed for a leave of

absence and requested transfer to another unit.
It is noteworthy that under AO 250, sexual harassment amounts to
disgraceful and immoral conduct. Thus, any finding of liability for
sexual harassment may also be the basis of culpability for
disgraceful and immoral conduct.Rayala holds the exalted position
of NLRC Chairman, with the rank equivalent to a CA Justice. Thus, it
is not unavailing that rigid standards of conduct may be demanded
of him.

PEOPLE V MELCHOR CABALQUINTO

G.R. No. 167693

family member, without the latter's consent, shall be liable

to the contempt power of the court.

September 19, 2006

(Formerly G.R. Nos. 147678-87)

Sec. 40 of theRule on Violence Against Women and their Children
states:
Doctrine
Sec. 29 of RA 7610 provides:
Sec. 29.Confidentiality. at the instance of the offended
party, his name may be withheld from the public until the
court acquires jurisdiction over the case.

It shall be unlawful for any editor, publisher, and reporter or

columnist in case of printed materials, announcer or
producer in the case of television and radio broadcasting,
producer and director in the case of the movie industry, to
cause undue and sensationalized publicity of any case of a
violation of this Act which results in the moral degradation
and suffering of the offended party.

Sec. 44 of RA 9262 similarly provides:

Sec. 44.Confidentiality.All records pertaining to cases of
violence against women and their children including those in
the barangay shall be confidential and all public officers and
employees and public or private clinics or hospitals shall
respect the right to privacy of the victim. Whoever publishes
or causes to be published, in any format, the name, address,
telephone number, school, business address, employer, or
other identifying information of a victim or an immediate

11 | P a g e

Sec. 40.Privacy and confidentiality of proceedings.All

hearings of cases of violence against women and their
children shall be conducted in a manner consistent with the
dignity of women and their children and respect for their
privacy.

BRIEF
This case presents an opportunity for the Court not only to once
again dispense due requital for the sufferings of a child who has
been defiled by her own father, but also to effectuate the provisions
of Republic Act No. 7610 (RA 7610), otherwise known as the Special
Protection of Children Against Child Abuse, Exploitation and
Discrimination Act, and its implementing rules, RA 9262, otherwise
known as the Anti-Violence Against Women and Their Children Act
of 2004, and its implementing rules, and our own Rule on Violence
Against Women and their Children.
FACTS
ABC testified that she is the common-law wife of Cabalquinto and
that they have four children, namely: BBB, CCC, the child-victim
AAA, and DDD. At around 8:45 p.m. of November 13, 1998, she was
on her way home. Since there is a half-inch gap between the door
and the wall, she peeped through the gap and saw Cabalquinto
lying face down making pumping motions on their daughter, AAA,
who was lying underneath him with her panties pulled down. When
she heard Cabalquinto tell AAA to open her legs (ibukamo), she
kicked and pounded the door. Cabalquinto immediately lay down.
AAA then stood up and opened the door. ABC entered the room and
confronted Cabalquinto who only denied her accusation. ABC
further testified that during the police investigation on November
14, 1998, AAA revealed to the police that a similar incident

happened to her on November 8, 1998, the day of her friends

birthday celebration.
Dr. Manalo, who conducted the physical examination of AAA,
testified that AAA had no injury on her genitalia; that her hymen is
quite large and distensible possibly because of penile penetration;
and that she recovered a strand of pubic hair inside AAA's vaginal
vault which could only have reached the area as a consequence of
penile penetration because AAA did not have pubic hair yet.
Testifying as lone witness for his defense, Cabalquinto denied that
he raped AAA. The trial court gave full credence to AAA's testimony
and found the accused guilty of the crime of rape.
The mother submitted that confidentiality and the best interest of
the child must prevail over public access to information and
pleaded that her daughters case, as well as those of a similar
nature, be excluded from the Web Page.

invoked falls within the constitutionally-protected zone of

privacy, it must be shown that the persons expectation of
privacy is reasonable. The reasonableness of such
expectancy depends on a two part test: (1) whether by his
conduct, the individual has exhibited an expectation of
privacy; and (2) whether this expectation is one that society
recognizes as reasonable.
It shall be unlawful for any editor, publisher, and reporter or
columnist in case of printed materials, announcer or
producer in the case of television and radio broadcasting,
producer and director in the case of the movie industry, to
cause undue and sensationalized publicity of any case of a
violation of this Act which results in the moral degradation
and suffering of the offended party.

ISSUE
1. Whether Cabalquinto is guilty of the crime rape - Yes
2. Whether the identity of the aggrieved party should not be
disclosed in line with the right to privacy for rape cases Yes
HELD
1. Carnal knowledge of a woman under 12 years of age is rape
as defined under Art. 335 of the Revised Penal Code, and is
qualified when the offender is a parent of the victim, in
which case, the death penalty shall be imposed as provided
under the Death Penalty Law.39 In this case, the qualifying
circumstances of the victim's minority and her relationship
with the accused as the latter's daughter were properly
alleged in the Informations, proven during trial and not
refuted by Cabalquinto. However, in view of Republic Act No.
9346 which prohibits the imposition of the death penalty,
the penalty of reclusion perpetuawithout eligibility for parole
should instead be imposed.
2. The position of the OSG in its Comment is noteworthy. The
OSG submits that the posting of the full text of
decisions in cases involving child abuse on the
Supreme Court Web Page violates the right to privacy
of the aggrieved parties. In order to determine whether
the subject matter upon which the right to privacy being

12 | P a g e

AQUINO VS. ACOSTA

ATTY. SUSAN M. AQUINO, petitioner,
vs.
HON. ERNESTO D. ACOSTA, Presiding Judge, Court of Tax
Appeals, respondent
A.M. No. CTA-01-1
02 April 2002
Ponente: SANDOVAL-GUTIERREZ, J.

Nature of Case:
Administrative Case
BRIEF:
Atty. Susan M. Aquino, Chief of the Legal and Technical Staff of the
Court of Tax Appeals (CTA), charged Judge Ernesto Acosta, Presiding
Judge of the same court, with sexual harassment under R.A. 7877
and violation of the Canons of Judicial Ethics and Code of
Professional Responsibility.
FACTS:
On November 21, 2000, she reported for work after her vacation in
the U.S., bringing gifts for the three judges of the CTA, including
respondent. In the afternoon of the same day, he entered her room
and greeted her by shaking her hand. Suddenly, he pulled her
towards
him
and
kissed
her
on
her
cheek.
On December 28, 2000, while respondent was on official leave, he
called complainant by phone, saying he will get something in her
office. Shortly thereafter, he entered her room, shook her hand and
greeted her, "Merry Christmas." Thereupon, he embraced her and
kissed her. She was able to free herself by slightly pushing him
away.
On the first working day in January, 2001, respondent phoned
complainant, asking if she could see him in his chambers in order
to discuss some matters. When complainant arrived there,
respondent tried to kiss her but she was able to evade his sexual
attempt.
Weeks later, after the Senate approved the proposed bill expanding
the jurisdiction of the CTA, while complainant and her companions
were congratulating and kissing each other, respondent suddenly
placed his arms around her shoulders and kissed her.
In the morning of February 14, 2001, respondent called
complainant, requesting her to go to his office. She then asked
Ruby Lanuza, a clerk in the Records Section, to accompany her.
Fortunately, when they reached his chambers, respondent had left.
The last incident happened the next day. At around 8:30 a.m.,
respondent called complainant and asked her to see him in his
office to discuss the Senate bill on the CTA. She again requested
Ruby to accompany her. The latter agreed but suggested that they

13 | P a g e

should act as if they met by accident in respondents office. Ruby

then approached the secretarys table which was separated from
respondents office by a transparent glass. For her part, complainant
sat in front of respondent's table and asked him what he wanted to
know about the Senate bill. Respondent seemed to be at a loss for
words and kept glancing at Ruby who was searching for something
at the secretary's desk. Forthwith, respondent approached Ruby,
asked her what she was looking for and stepped out of the office.
When he returned, Ruby said she found what she was looking for
and left. Respondent then approached complainant saying, me
gusto akonggawinsaiyokahapon pa. Thereupon, he tried to grab
her. Complainant instinctively raised her hands to protect herself
but respondent held her arms tightly, pulled her towards him and
kissed her. She pushed him away, then slumped on a chair
trembling. Meantime, respondent sat on his chair and covered his
face with his hands. Thereafter, complainant left crying and locked
herself inside a comfort room. After that incident, respondent went
to her office and tossed a note stating, sorry, it wont happen again.
ISSUE:
Whether or not Judge Acosta is guilty of sexually harassment.
ACTIONS OF THE COURT
SC: No.
COURT RATIONALE ON THE ABOVE FACTS:
A mere casual buss on the cheek is not a sexual conduct or favor
and does not fall within the purview of sexual harassment under
R.A. No. 7877. Section 3 (a) thereof provides, to wit:
'Sec. 3. Work, Education or Training - related Sexual Harassment
Defined. - Work, education or training-related sexual harassment is
committed by an employer, employee, manager, supervisor, agent
of the employer, teacher, instructor, professor, coach, trainor, or
any other person who, having authority, influence or moral
ascendancy over another in a work or training or education
environment, demands, requests or otherwise requires any sexual
favor from the other, regardless of whether the demand, request or
requirement for submission is accepted by the object of said Act.
a) In a work-related or employment
harassment is committed when:

environment,

sexual

1) The sexual favor is made as a condition in the hiring or in the

employment, re-employment or continued employment of said

individual, or in granting said individual favorable compensation,
terms, conditions, promotions or privileges; or the refusal to grant
sexual favor results in limiting, segregating or classifying the
employee which in anyway would discriminate, deprive or diminish
employment opportunities or otherwise adversely affect said
employees;
2) The above acts would impair the employee's right or privileges
under existing labor laws; or
3) The above acts would result in an intimidating, hostile, or
offensive environment for the employee.
Clearly, under the foregoing provisions, the elements of sexual
harassment are as follows:
i) The employer, employee, manager, supervisor, agent of the
employer, teacher, instructor, professor, coach, trainor, or any
other person has authority, influence or moral ascendancy over
another;
ii) The authority, influence or moral ascendancy exists in a working
environment;
iii) The employer, employee, manager, supervisor, agent of the
employer, teacher, instructor, professor, coach, or any other person
having authority, influence or moral ascendancy makes a demand,
request or requirement of a sexual favor.
Indeed, from the records on hand, there is no showing that
respondent judge demanded, requested or required any sexual
favor from complainant in exchange for favorable compensation,
terms, conditions, promotion or privileges specified under Section 3
of R.A. 7877. Nor did he, by his actuations, violate the Canons of
Judicial Ethics or the Code of Professional Responsibility.

NONITO IMBO Y GAMORES, petitioner,

vs.
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, respondent
G.R. No. 197712
20 April 2015
Ponente: PEREZ, J.
Nature of Case:
Petition for Review of Certiorari under Rule 45
BRIEF:
Appeal on the decision of the CA affirming RTC decision convicting
petitioner of the Crime of Acts of Lasciviousness under Article 336
of the RPC in relation to Section 5, Article III of RA No 7160.
FACTS:
The Information filed against the petitioner herein stated that on or
about 14 October 2003 up to 25 January 2004 in Quezon City, Imbo
committed acts of lasciviousness upon his 11 year old daughter by
then and there forcing her to remove her shorts, mashing her
breasts and private parts and kissing her, thereby subjecting said
complainant to sexual abuse, with lewd design and against her
will.
Imbo claimed that his wife merely fabricated such a story (in Imbos
daughters story, she screamed for her mother 3 times and was not
heard and she was only able to tell her mother about the incident in
the following morning) that he had raped his daughter. Ultimately,
Imbo claimed that on the night in question, within the period from
14 October 2003 to 25 January 2004, no crime occurred, his days
ending as did his workday which were from 830am to 500pm.

SUPREME COURT RULING:

WHEREFORE, respondent Judge Ernesto D. Acosta is hereby
EXONERATED of the charges against him. However, he is ADVISED
to be more circumspect in his deportment.

ISSUE:
Whether Imbo is liable for the crime of acts of lasciviousness.

IMBO VS. PEOPLE

COURT RATIONALE ON THE ABOVE FACTS:

14 | P a g e

ACTIONS OF THE COURT

RTC: Convicted for the crime of Acts of Lasciviousness
CA: Affirmed RTC ruling
SC: Affirmed RTC and CA rulings

Imbo has undoubtedly committed the acts of lasciviousness as all

the elements of the crime was sufficiently proven through the lone
testimony of his daughter which the court has held in more than
one occasion as more than sufficient to establish the guilt of the
accused.Under Art. 336 of the RPC, the elements of the crime of
Acts of Lasciviousness are:
1) The offender commits any act of lasciviousness or
lewdness;
2) That it is done under any of the following circumstances:
a. By using force or intimidation; or
b. When the offended party is deprived of reason or
otherwise unconscious; or
c. By means of fraudulent machination or grave abuse
of authority; and
d. When the offended party is under 12 years of
age.
3) That the offended party is another person of either
sex.
SUPREME COURT RULING:

15 | P a g e

WHEREFORE, the appeal is DENIED. The Decision dated February

17, 2011 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CR No. 32804 and the
Judgment of the Regional Trial Court, Branch 94, Quezon City in
Criminal Case No. 04-124565 are AFFIRMED WITH MODIFICATION.
Petitioner NonitoImbo Y Gamores is sentenced to an indeterminate
penalty of twelve (12) years and one (1) day of reclusion temporal
as minimum and seventeen (17) years and four (4) months of
reclusion temporal as maximum.