Written by Shenellyn Pineda and Mary Philline Rodriguez
The Supreme Court of the Philippines En Banc, in a decision penned by Associate Justice Henri Jean Paul B. Inting, upheld Jeffrey Gramatica’s conviction for lascivious conduct under Section 5(b) of Republic Act No. 7610, while modifying the conviction of XXX2660399 to acts of lasciviousness under Article 336 of the Revised Penal Code (RPC).
The ruling lays down definitive guidelines to ensure the proper prosecution of cases under these two distinct laws and provides prosecutors with a clearer framework for charging sexual offenses involving minors. More importantly, it draws a clear doctrinal distinction between cases involving a minor’s defective consent caused by adult coercion or influence, and cases where there is absolutely no consent because the victim is asleep, unconscious, or intimidated.
Legal Distinction
The consolidated cases involved minors AAA, BBB, and CCC. In one case, minors AAA and BBB allegedly engaged in sexual acts with Gramatica in exchange for shabu, while the other involved minor CCC who was sexually abused by her grandfather while she was asleep. These distinct factual circumstances required the Court to carefully determine whether liability falls under RA 7610 or the Revised Penal Code.
The Court explained that Section 5(b) of RA 7610 applies only when a child indulges in sexual conduct due to coercion or adult influence, resulting in what the law considers “defective consent.” This means that while minors may appear to agree or participate, such participation is actually driven by manipulation, vulnerability, or exploitation.
In contrast, the Revised Penal Code applies where there is no real participation or consent at all, such as when the victim is asleep, unconscious, or otherwise incapable of giving any form of consent. It also applies in cases involving force, intimidation, fraud, or grave abuse of authority. In these situations, the proper offense is acts of lasciviousness under Article 336 of the RPC, not RA 7610.
The Legislative Call
While the Supreme Court affirmed the accused’s conviction under RA 7610 in one case and modified liability to Article 336 of the Revised Penal Code in another, it acknowledged a troubling gap in the law—the penalty imposed under the RPC may be lower despite the gravity of the offense against a minor.
Recognizing this disparity, the Court directly calls on the legislature to revisit and strengthen existing child protection laws. It emphasized that the Constitution mandates the special protection of children from abuse, cruelty, and exploitation, urging lawmakers to amend present statutes to better safeguard the safety, dignity, well-being, and welfare of Filipino children.
THE BARRISTER 