CABALLO v.

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES

G.R No. 198732. June 10, 2013
PERLAS-BERNABE, J.:

FACTS:
 Christian Caballo, then 23 years old, met AAA, then 17 years old, in her uncle's place in
Surigao City. Caballo was a dancer of AAA's uncle, who was a choreographer. When the two
met, AAA was a sophomore student at the University of San Carlos and resided in a boarding
house in Cebu City. Caballo went to Cebu City, on January 17, 1998, to attend the Sinulog
Festival and visited AAA, where they became sweethearts after spending some time together.
In the third week of March 1998, AAA went home to his uncle in Surigao City, and on the last
week of March 1998, Caballo persuaded AAA to have sexual intercourse with him. Caballo
promised AAA that he would marry her, and that she would not be pregnant because he
would use the “withdrawal method.” This was followed by a series of sexual intercourse
during a span of seven months until AAA became pregnant and gave birth on March 1999.

 Caballo was charged and found guilty beyond reasonable doubt, for violation of Section
10(a), Article VI of RA 7610 in relation to Section 2 of the Rules on Child Abuse Cases, by the
Regional Trial Court (RTC). Aggrieved, Caballo elevated the case to the Court of Appeals.

 The Court of Appeals (CA), affirmed with modification the RTC's ruling, saying that it was
Section 5(b), Article III of RA 7610 that was violated because that was what the body supports.

 Having been found guilty by the RTC and affirmed with modification by the CA, Caballo
still contends that he should not be convicted because he did not coerce AAA to have sex with
him as it was consensual because they are sweethearts. Caballo filed a motion for
reconsideration, which was denied on September 26, 2011. Hence the instant petition.

ISSUE:

 WHETHER OR NOT Caballo coerced AAA to have sexual intercourse with him.

RULING:
  Yes. The Supreme Court (SC) affirms both decisions of the lower courts. Justice
Perlas-Bernabe points out, “…that RA 7610 was meant to advance the state policy of
affording ‘protection to children from all forms of abuse, neglect, and discrimination and
other conditions prejudicial to their development…’” The Supreme Court maintains its
decisions under Sec. 5, Article III of RA 7610 by citing People v. Larin which states that, “
Sec. 5, Article III of RA 7610, does not merely cover a situation of a child being abused for
profit, but also one in which a child engages in any lascivious conduct through coercion or
intimidation.” Based on this premise, jurisprudence settles that consent is immaterial in
cases involving a violation of Section 5, Article III of RA 7610. The Supreme Court also
debunked the defense of petitioner Caballo, citing a ruling in Malto which states, “for
purpose of sexual intercourse and lascivious conduct in child abuse cases under RA 7610,
the sweetheart defense is unacceptable.”