That on or about July 20, 1997, in the Municipality of San Pedro, Province of
Laguna, within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, said accused actuated by
lewd design did then and there wilfully, unlawfully and feloniously by means of
force and intimidation commit acts of lasciviousness on the person of one [AAA],
by touching her breasts and kissing her lips, against her will, to her damage and
prejudice.
CONTRARY TO LAW. (emphasis added)
Conspicuously enough, the Infonnation in Olivarez is couched in a similar fashion as
the Information in the extant case. The absence of the phrase "exploited in
prostitution or subject to other sexual abuse" or even the specific mention of
"coercion" or "influence" was never a bar for the Court to uphold the finding of guilt
against an accused for violation of RA 7610. Just as the Court held that it was
enough for the Information in Olivarez to have alleged that the offense was
committed by means of "force and intimidation," the Court must also rule that the
Information in the case at bench does not suffer from the alleged infirmity.
So too did the Court find no impediment in People v. Abadies,[33] Malto v. People,[34]
People v. Ching,[35] People v. Bonaagua,[36] and Caballo v. People[37] to convict the
accused therein for violation of Sec. 5, RA 7610 notwithstanding the non-mention in
the Information of "coercion," "influence," or "exploited in prostitution or subject to
other abuse."
The offense charged can also be elucidated by consulting the designation of the
offense as appearing in the Information. The designation of the offense is a critical
element required under Sec. 6, Rule 110 of the Rules of Court for it assists in
apprising the accused of the offense being charged. Its inclusion in the Information
is imperative to avoid surprise on the accused and to afford him of the opportunity
to prepare his defense accordingly.[38] Its import is underscored in this case where
the preamble states that the crime charged is of "Acts of Lasciviousness in relation
to Section 5(b) of R.A. No. 7610."
In Malto v. People,[39] therein accused Michael John Z. Malto (Malto) was charged
for violation of RA 7610 in the following wise:
The undersigned Assistant City Prosecutor accuses MICHAEL JOHN Z. MALTO of
VIOLATION OF SECTION 5[b], ARTICLE III, REPUBLIC ACT 7610, AS
AMENDED, committed as follows:
That on or about and sometime during the month of November 1997 up to 1998, in
Pasay City, Metro Manila, Philippines and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable
Court, the above-named accused, 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