Previous 9 / 81 Next

MINORS, WHETHER MALE OR FEMALE, WHO FOR MONEY, PROFIT, OR ANY OTHER CONSIDERATION OR INFLUENCE OF ANY ADULT, SYNDICATE OR GROUP INDULGE IN SEXUAL INTERCOURSE, et cetera. Senator Lina. It is accepted, Mr. President. The President Pro Tempore. Is there any objection? [Silence] Hearing none, the amendment is approved. How about the title, 'Child Prostitution,' shall we change that too? Senator Angara. Yes, Mr. President, to cover the expanded scope. The President Pro Tempore. Is that not what we would call probable 'child abuse'? Senator Angara. Yes, Mr. President. The President Pro Tempore. Subject to rewording. Is there any objection? [Silence] Hearing none, the amendment is approved. Clear from the records of the deliberation is that the original wording of Sec. 5 of RA 7610 has been expanded so as to cover abuses that are not characterized by gain, monetary or otherwise. In the case at bar, the abuse suffered by AAA squarely falls under this expanded scope as there was no allegation of consideration or profit in exchange for sexual favor. As stated in the Information, petitioner committed lascivious conduct through the use of "force" and "intimidation." iii. "Force and intimidation" is subsumed under "coercion and influence" The term "coercion and influence" as appearing in the law is broad enough to cover "force and intimidation" as used in the Information. To be sure, Black's Law Dictionary defines "coercion" as "compulsion; force; duress"[26] while "[undue] influence" is defined as "persuasion carried to the point of overpowering the will."[27] On the other hand, "force" refers to "constraining power, compulsion; strength directed to an end"[28] while jurisprudence defines "intimidation" as "unlawful coercion; extortion; duress; putting in fear."[29] As can be gleaned, the terms are used almost synonymously. It is then of no moment that the terminologies employed by RA 7610 and by the Information are different. And to dispel any remaining lingering doubt as to their interchangeability, the Court enunciated in Caballo v. People[30] that: x x x sexual intercourse or lascivious conduct under the coercion or influence of any adult exists when there is some form of compulsion equivalent to intimidation which subdues the free exercise of the offended party's free

Select target paragraph3

● ● ●

Braga v. People

Jurisprudence

Case number: G.R. No. 214497

Date of decision: Apr 18, 2017

Year of decision: 2017

GBV Case Type

Acts of lasciviousness
Child Abuse (R.A. 7610)
Minor

Nature of the case: A 7 years old girl who is the oldest child, belongs to the Girl-Children Sector was forced and intimated by the accused with lewd design who is the caretaker of the ducks of the victim’s grandfather after asking the latter to accompany the former and her other siblings as they were afraid because there was no electricity during the occurrence of the incident in the victim's house in Palapas, Ligao City, Albay. In her sleep, she was suddenly awakened when she felt that the accused's right leg was on top of her body and likewise sensed that the accused's right finger was being inserted inside her panty and in trice, she felt the accused was caressing her private part. The accused was convicted for the crime of Acts of Lasciviousness (Violation of Art. 366 of the Revised Penal Code in relation to Section 5(b), Article III of Republic Act No. 7610).

Summary of outcome

The accused is convicted and is sentenced to suffer the following penalties:

Indeterminate imprisonment of 12 years and 1 day of reclusion temporal in its minimum period as minimum to 15 years, 6 months and 21 days of reclusion temporal in its medium period as maxium; and
Pay the victim moral damage, exemplary damages and fine in the amount of P 15,000.00 each as well as P 20,000.00 as civil indemnity all of which shall earn an interest of 6% per annum from the finality of the decision.

Observatory: Gender-Based Violence

Ponente: VELASCO JR., J.:

Long title: EDUARDO QUIMVEL Y BRAGA, PETITIONER, VS. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, RESPONDENT.

Geolocation 1

Latitude: 13.1928

Longitude: 123.4748

: Geolocation 1

Primary Documents

G.R. No. 214497, April 18, 2017.pdf
English
Download View

Commission on Human Rights

Select target paragraph3

Braga v. People

Primary Documents

Notifications