JADE Legal Services

What is the difference between a crime and a felony?

CRIME is a generic term that refers to any act or omission punishable by law. It includes violations of the Revised Penal Code, Special Penal Laws (SPLs), and other penal statutes. FELONY, on the other hand, is a specific term that pertains only to acts or omissions punishable under the Revised Penal Code.
A felony is defined under Article 3 of the Revised Penal Code as: “Acts and omissions punishable by law are felonies (delitos). Felonies are committed not only by means of deceit (dolo) but also by means of fault (culpa)

Send a message to learn more

KNOW YOUR RIGHTS!

Article III, Section 20 of the 1987 Philippine Constitution is clear:

"No person shall be imprisoned for debt or non-payment of a poll tax."

'NAKULONG DAHIL SA UTANG'

If the reports are accurate, this is alarming. No one should be arrested simply because of an unpaid debt. To the prosecutor who filed the information that eventually led to the issuance of a warrant of arrest, this issue was already addressed by the Supreme Court in G.R. No. 189081 (2016).

The Court reminded creditors not to use criminal complaints to harass debtors or turn the courts into mere collection agencies. Yet incidents like this still appear to occur.

I hope this issue is emphasized in the Bar Examinations so that future lawyers fully understand the proper distinction between civil remedies for debt collection and criminal liability.

| Screengrab via News5

Read the full text in the comments section.

R@pe can now be committed by a woman against a man.

In the landmark case of 𝐀𝐧𝐧𝐚𝐛𝐞𝐥𝐥 𝐌𝐚𝐥𝐢𝐜𝐥𝐢𝐜 𝐯. 𝐏𝐞𝐨𝐩𝐥𝐞 𝐨𝐟 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐏𝐡𝐢𝐥𝐢𝐩𝐩𝐢𝐧𝐞𝐬, 𝐆.𝐑. 𝐍𝐨. 𝟐𝟖𝟎𝟕𝟐𝟕, 𝐅𝐞𝐛𝐫𝐮𝐚𝐫𝐲 𝟒, 𝟐𝟎𝟐𝟔 the Supreme Court clarified that the crime of r@pe through car*nal knowledge is no longer restricted to male offenders and female victims. Following Republic Act No. 11648, the law recognizes that women can commit r@pe and that men can be victims.
The case involved an adult woman who forced an 11-year-old boy into se*xual inter*course. However, the abuse occurred in 2018, long before the new gender-neutral law was enacted. Because the Philippine Constitution strictly prohibits retroactively punishing someone under a law that didn't exist when the act occurred (ex post facto laws), she could not be convicted of r@pe. Instead, she was convicted of Statutory Acts of Las*civiousness.

The Supreme Court explicitly stated that the old legal model limiting r@pe to male-on-female acts was an outdated, patriarchal concept. The Court affirmed that se*xual violence is defined by an abuse of power and a lack of consent, and the resulting trauma is the same regardless of a victim's gender.

NEW BIR LAW SIGNED: Wipe Out Your Tax Penalties & Get a Clean Slate!

JADE Legal & Accounting Services is officially opening its doors on June 1, 2026 (Monday)

We are ready to assist you with:
✔️ Notary Public
✔️ Litigation Services
✔️ Legal Counsel
✔️ Land Title Transfer & Registration
✔️ Business Finance & Taxation
✔️ Business Licensing
✔️ Surety Bond
✔️ Bail Bond

📍 Unit 10 VSV Bldg., J.P. Rizal St., Brgy. San Vicente Uno, Silang, Cavite 4118
🕘 Monday–Friday | 9:00 AM – 5:00 PM

Let us help you with your legal and accounting needs—professionally, efficiently, and with integrity.

Know your rights!

***Employee Rights under Philippine Labor Law***

1. Right to Security of Tenure

Definition: Security of tenure means that an employee cannot be dismissed from service except for just or authorized causes and only after being afforded due process.
Just Causes (Article 297, Labor Code): These refer to reasons directly attributable to the employee’s actions or behavior (e.g., serious misconduct, willful disobedience, gross neglect of duties).

Authorized Causes (Article 298-299, Labor Code): These are valid business reasons unrelated to an employee’s fault (e.g., redundancy, retrenchment to prevent losses, closure of business, disease not curable within six months).
Due Process: Employers must provide a written notice to explain the charges, give the employee a chance to respond, and issue a written notice of decision.
Key Takeaway: Your employer cannot terminate your employment arbitrarily or without valid grounds and due process.

2. Right to Just and Humane Conditions of Work

A. MINIMUM WAGE

Statutory Minimum Wage: The Regional Tripartite Wages and Productivity Board (RTWPB) in each region sets the minimum wage. Rates vary per region and may also differ between cities/municipalities and different industries.
Prohibition Against Wage Reduction: Employers cannot reduce wages unilaterally, especially if an employee is already receiving above the minimum wage.

B. WORKING HOURS AND OVERTIME PAY

Normal Working Hours: Generally limited to 8 hours per day or 48 hours per week.
Overtime: Work performed beyond 8 hours a day must be paid with an additional compensation of at least 25% of the regular wage. If overtime work falls on a rest day or holiday, the rate increases to at least 30% of the regular wage.

C. NIGHT SHIFT DIFFERENTIAL

Definition: An additional compensation of at least 10% of the regular wage for each hour worked between 10:00 PM and 6:00 AM.

D. REST DAY

Weekly Rest Period: Employees must be given at least 24 consecutive hours of rest in every period of seven (7) consecutive days. Usually, Sunday is considered the rest day, but scheduling may vary depending on the nature of work.

3. Right to Various Leaves and Benefits

A. SERVICE INCENTIVE LEAVE (SIL)

Service Incentive Leave: Employees who have rendered at least one year of service are entitled to a yearly 5-day paid leave. If unused, the leave may be converted to cash at year-end, unless a more favorable policy is provided by the employer.

B. MATERNITY LEAVE (R.A. 11210)

Coverage: Female employees in the public and private sectors, including those in the informal economy, are entitled to maternity leave benefits.
Duration: 105 days of paid leave for live childbirth (with an option to extend for 30 days without pay), 120 days for solo parents, and 60 days for miscarriage or emergency termination of pregnancy.
Payment: Usually paid through the Social Security System (SSS) subject to its rules and regulations.

C. PATERNITY LEAVE (R.A. 8187)

Coverage: Married male employees are entitled to paternity leave for the first four (4) deliveries of the legitimate spouse, provided that the employee lives with the spouse.
Duration: 7 days with full pay.
D. PARENTAL LEAVE FOR SOLO PARENTS (R.A. 8972)

Coverage: Solo parents (as defined by law) who have worked for at least one year.
Duration: 7 working days of leave with full pay each year.
E. LEAVE FOR VICTIMS OF VIOLENCE AGAINST WOMEN AND THEIR CHILDREN (VAWC LEAVE) (R.A. 9262)

Coverage: Female employees who are victims of physical, sexual, psychological, or economic abuse.
Duration: Up to 10 days of paid leave (extendable if needed and justified by court).

4. Right to 13th Month Pay

Definition: 13th month pay is a mandatory benefit given to all rank-and-file employees who have worked for at least one month during a calendar year.
Computation: At least 1/12 of the total basic salary earned within the year.
Payment Schedule: Must be paid on or before December 24 of every year.

5. Right to Holiday Pay

Regular Holidays: Employees who work on regular holidays (e.g., New Year’s Day, Independence Day) are entitled to 200% of their daily rate for the first 8 hours. If the holiday falls on the employee’s rest day, or if they work beyond 8 hours, additional premium rates apply.
Special Non-Working Holidays: Employees who work on special non-working days (e.g., Ninoy Aquino Day, All Saints’ Day) are generally entitled to 130% of their daily rate for the first 8 hours.
6. Right to Social Benefits

A. SOCIAL SECURITY SYSTEM (SSS)

All private sector employees are covered by the SSS. Contributions are shared by both employer and employee. Benefits include sickness, maternity, disability, retirement, funeral, and death benefits.

B. PHILHEALTH

Employees (and their qualified dependents) are entitled to health insurance benefits for hospitalization and medical procedures. Contributions are shared between employer and employee.

C. PAG-IBIG FUND (HOME DEVELOPMENT MUTUAL FUND)

Provides housing loans, calamity loans, and savings programs to employees. Contributions are also shared by the employer and the employee.

7. Right to Safe Working Environment

Occupational Safety and Health Standards (OSH): DOLE issues guidelines on health, safety, and welfare of workers. Employers have the duty to provide a workplace free from hazards, comply with safety standards, and conduct necessary training and health checks.
DOLE Department Orders: Various department orders detail employer obligations, such as providing personal protective equipment (PPE), ensuring proper ventilation, and establishing an OSH committee.

8. Right to Self-Organization and Collective Bargaining

Self-Organization: Employees are free to form, join, or assist labor unions for the purpose of collective bargaining or for their mutual benefit and protection.
Collective Bargaining Agreement (CBA): Employees have the right, through their labor unions, to negotiate with employers concerning terms and conditions of employment.
Protection Against Discrimination: Workers may not be harassed, dismissed, or discriminated against because of union membership or activities.

9. Right to Equal Work Opportunities

Non-Discrimination: The Philippine Constitution and labor laws uphold the principle of equality and prohibit discrimination based on gender, age, religion, political affiliation, or other protected characteristics.
Women’s Rights and Protection: Laws such as R.A. 9710 (Magna Carta of Women) and R.A. 7877 (Anti-Sexual Harassment Act) reinforce the protection of women and provide legal remedies for discriminatory or abusive conduct.
10. Right to Retirement Benefits

Coverage: Employees who have reached the compulsory retirement age (usually 65 years old) or optional retirement age (60-64 years old, if the company policy or CBA allows) may receive retirement pay.
Minimum Retirement Pay: At least one-half (1/2) month salary for every year of service, where “one-half month salary” includes basic pay plus certain allowances (if applicable).
11. Right to Certificate of Employment (COE)

Upon Separation: Employees (whether resigned, terminated, or retired) have the right to receive a Certificate of Employment upon request. This certificate indicates the period of employment and the type of work performed.
12. Right to Due Process in Wage and Benefit Claims

Filing Complaints: Employees who believe their rights have been violated may file a case or complaint before the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC) or the nearest DOLE field office.
Small Money Claims: DOLE has a mechanism for smaller monetary claims to be settled without going through lengthy litigation (e.g., Single Entry Approach or SEnA).
13. Remedies and Enforcement

DOLE Assistance: For labor standards violations (e.g., non-payment of wages, underpayment, illegal deductions), DOLE can conduct labor inspections and mandate compliance.
NLRC: Handles labor disputes involving illegal dismissal, money claims beyond a certain threshold, and other labor controversies.
Voluntary Arbitration: If a CBA is in place, disputes may be resolved through voluntary arbitration under the agreement.

Valor isn't just a chapter in our history books; it’s the heartbeat of our nation. Today, we honor the heroes of the past by being the heroes our future needs. 🇵🇭

"A plain and straightforward interpretation of 𝘚𝘦𝘤𝘵𝘪𝘰𝘯 5(𝘣) 𝘰𝘧 𝘙𝘈 7610 provides a clear definition of children subjected to other sexual abuse as those who indulge in sexual in*******se or lascivious conduct due to the coercion or influence of an adult.
The SC clarified the scope of lascivious conduct under 𝘚𝘦𝘤𝘵𝘪𝘰𝘯 5(𝘣) 𝘰𝘧 𝘙𝘈 7610 and distinguished it from related crimes under the RPC. To ensure uniform and consistent prosecution of cases, the Supreme Court laid down guidelines, considering also RA 11648, which raised the age of sexual consent to 16 years old.
𝙁𝙞𝙧𝙨𝙩, 𝘚𝘦𝘤𝘵𝘪𝘰𝘯 5(𝘣) 𝘰𝘧 𝘙𝘈 7610 applies to children who are 12 years of age (now 16 years old following the amendment under RA 11648) to below 18 who are subjected to sexual abuse.
𝙎𝙚𝙘𝙤𝙣𝙙, it covers situations where consent is present but defective. The minor may seem to “indulge” or agree, but does so not out of free will, but because of coercion or influence by an adult. Thus, engaging in sexual acts with a child exploited in prostitution or subjected to sexual abuse is a criminal act, regardless of apparent consent.
𝙏𝙝𝙞𝙧𝙙, it does not apply when the act involves force, intimidation, fraud, deprivation of reason, unconsciousness, or grave abuse of authority. In such cases, the crime falls under acts of lasciviousness under the RPC.
𝙁𝙤𝙪𝙧𝙩𝙝, if the victim is under 12 or under 16, and the case does not fit Section 5(b), the crime is r**e or acts of lasciviousness under the RPC.
These principles, which distinguish force and intimidation on one hand, and coercion and influence on the other, and limit RA 7610 to minors who are exploited in prostitution or sexual abuse, also apply to other sexual crimes, including r**e.
In this case, BBB was a child exploited in prostitution or other sexual abuse because she had sexual in*******se with Gramatica in exchange for some consideration, namely shabu, which makes him criminally liable under Section 5(b).
Meanwhile, 𝘚𝘦𝘤𝘵𝘪𝘰𝘯 5(𝘣) 𝘰𝘧 𝘙𝘈 7610 does not apply to # # #266039.
The Supreme Court clarified that not all acts of lasciviousness against minors aged 12 to under 18 are covered by RA 7610. The law applies only when minors are subjected to sexual abuse, such as when they “indulge” or give defective consent to the conduct.
Here, CCC did not indulge in lascivious conduct, as she was asleep and unconscious during the incident. # # #266039 did not use coercion or influence, but relied on his moral ascendancy as her grandfather, which counts as intimidation. These circumstances make # # #266039 liable for acts of lasciviousness under 𝘈𝘳𝘵𝘪𝘤𝘭𝘦 336 𝘰𝘧 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘙𝘗𝘊, rather than RA 7610.
For lascivious conduct under Section 5(b) involving BBB, Gramatica was sentenced to a maximum of 17 years, four months, and one day in prison and ordered to pay BBB PHP 150,000 in civil indemnity and damages, as well as a PHP 15,000 fine.
For acts of lasciviousness under 𝘈𝘳𝘵𝘪𝘤𝘭𝘦 336 𝘰𝘧 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘙𝘗𝘊, # # #266039 was sentenced to a maximum of six years in prison and ordered to pay CCC PHP450,000 in civil indemnity and damages with interest.
The SC acknowledged that under current laws, # # #266039, “who committed abhorrent and be***al acts against his minor granddaughter,” faces a penalty lower than that under RA 7610, and called on the legislature to amend existing laws to better protect children.
The SC calls the legislature to review and amend current laws protecting children, thus:
“𝘐𝘯 𝘭𝘪𝘯𝘦 𝘸𝘪𝘵𝘩 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘢𝘣𝘰𝘷𝘦, 𝘢𝘯𝘥 𝘪𝘯 𝘧𝘶𝘭𝘧𝘪𝘭𝘭𝘮𝘦𝘯𝘵 𝘰𝘧 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘊𝘰𝘶𝘳𝘵’𝘴 𝘥𝘶𝘵𝘺 𝘵𝘰 𝘶𝘱𝘩𝘰𝘭𝘥 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘊𝘰𝘯𝘴𝘵𝘪𝘵𝘶𝘵𝘪𝘰𝘯, 𝘸𝘩𝘪𝘤𝘩 𝘮𝘢𝘯𝘥𝘢𝘵𝘦𝘴 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘴𝘱𝘦𝘤𝘪𝘢𝘭 𝘱𝘳𝘰𝘵𝘦𝘤𝘵𝘪𝘰𝘯 𝘰𝘧 𝘤𝘩𝘪𝘭𝘥𝘳𝘦𝘯 𝘧𝘳𝘰𝘮 𝘢𝘭𝘭 𝘧𝘰𝘳𝘮𝘴 𝘰𝘧 𝘯𝘦𝘨𝘭𝘦𝘤𝘵, 𝘢𝘣𝘶𝘴𝘦, 𝘤𝘳𝘶𝘦𝘭𝘵𝘺, 𝘦𝘹𝘱𝘭𝘰𝘪𝘵𝘢𝘵𝘪𝘰𝘯 𝘢𝘯𝘥 𝘰𝘵𝘩𝘦𝘳 𝘤𝘰𝘯𝘥𝘪𝘵𝘪𝘰𝘯𝘴 𝘱𝘳𝘦𝘫𝘶𝘥𝘪𝘤𝘪𝘢𝘭 𝘵𝘰 𝘵𝘩𝘦𝘪𝘳 𝘥𝘦𝘷𝘦𝘭𝘰𝘱𝘮𝘦𝘯𝘵, 𝘭𝘦𝘵 𝘵𝘩𝘪𝘴 𝘴𝘦𝘳𝘷𝘦 𝘢𝘴 𝘢 𝘤𝘢𝘭𝘭 𝘵𝘰 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘭𝘦𝘨𝘪𝘴𝘭𝘢𝘵𝘶𝘳𝘦 𝘵𝘰 𝘧𝘶𝘭𝘧𝘪𝘭𝘭 𝘪𝘵𝘴 𝘣𝘰𝘶𝘯𝘥𝘦𝘯 𝘥𝘶𝘵𝘺 𝘰𝘧 𝘳𝘦𝘷𝘪𝘦𝘸𝘪𝘯𝘨 𝘢𝘯𝘥 𝘢𝘮𝘦𝘯𝘥𝘪𝘯𝘨 𝘰𝘶𝘳 𝘱𝘳𝘦𝘴𝘦𝘯𝘵 𝘭𝘢𝘸𝘴 𝘢𝘯𝘥 𝘦𝘯𝘴𝘶𝘳𝘪𝘯𝘨 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘴𝘢𝘧𝘦𝘵𝘺, 𝘸𝘦𝘭𝘭-𝘣𝘦𝘪𝘯𝘨, 𝘢𝘯𝘥 𝘥𝘪𝘨𝘯𝘪𝘵𝘺 𝘰𝘧 𝘰𝘶𝘳 𝘍𝘪𝘭𝘪𝘱𝘪𝘯𝘰 𝘤𝘩𝘪𝘭𝘥𝘳𝘦𝘯.”

The (SC) clarified the application of lascivious conduct under 𝘙𝘦𝘱𝘶𝘣𝘭𝘪𝘤 𝘈𝘤𝘵 (𝘙𝘈) 𝘕𝘰. 7610, or 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘚𝘱𝘦𝘤𝘪𝘢𝘭 𝘗𝘳𝘰𝘵𝘦𝘤𝘵𝘪𝘰𝘯 𝘰𝘧 𝘊𝘩𝘪𝘭𝘥𝘳𝘦𝘯 𝘈𝘨𝘢𝘪𝘯𝘴𝘵 𝘈𝘣𝘶𝘴𝘦, 𝘌𝘹𝘱𝘭𝘰𝘪𝘵𝘢𝘵𝘪𝘰𝘯 𝘢𝘯𝘥 𝘋𝘪𝘴𝘤𝘳𝘪𝘮𝘪𝘯𝘢𝘵𝘪𝘰𝘯 𝘈𝘤𝘵, in relation to acts of lasciviousness under the 𝘙𝘦𝘷𝘪𝘴𝘦𝘥 𝘗𝘦𝘯𝘢𝘭 𝘊𝘰𝘥𝘦 (𝘙𝘗𝘊).

In a Decision written by Associate Justice Henri Jean Paul B. Inting, the SC 𝘌𝘯 𝘉𝘢𝘯𝘤 upheld Jeffrey L. Gramatica’s conviction for lascivious conduct under 𝘚𝘦𝘤𝘵𝘪𝘰𝘯 5(𝘣) 𝘰𝘧 𝘙𝘈 7610, but modified another accused’s ( # # #2660399) conviction for acts of lasciviousness under 𝘈𝘳𝘵𝘪𝘤𝘭𝘦 366 𝘰𝘧 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘙𝘗𝘊.

In these consolidated cases involving minors, AAA, BBB, and CCC, the Supreme Court laid down guidelines to ensure the proper prosecution of cases under these two distinct laws.

AAA and BBB, both addicted to shabu, engaged in sexual acts with Gramatica and another man in exchange for the drug. Gramatica was later arrested and prosecuted for violation of 𝘚𝘦𝘤𝘵𝘪𝘰𝘯 5(𝘣) 𝘰𝘧 𝘙𝘈 7610, which penalizes lascivious conduct committed against a child exploited in prostitution or other sexual abuse.

In the other case, CCC was victimized by her grandfather, # # #266039, who touched her private parts while she was sleeping. # # #266039 was also charged under 𝘚𝘦𝘤𝘵𝘪𝘰𝘯 5(𝘣) 𝘰𝘧 𝘙𝘈 7610.

In his defense, Gramatica claimed that he courted BBB and had a sexual relationship with her but did not know she was a minor because she looked mature. For his part, # # #266039 denied the charges and claimed he merely woke CCC up to ask her for help applying his eye medicine.

The Regional Trial Court found both Gramatica and # # #266039 guilty of lascivious conduct under 𝘚𝘦𝘤𝘵𝘪𝘰𝘯 5(𝘣) 𝘰𝘧 𝘙𝘈 7610 towards BBB and CCC, respectively. The Court of Appeals affirmed their convictions.

A minor is considered to have been subjected to other sexual abuse when they are a victim of lascivious conduct under the coercion or influence of an adult. In this case, BBB was 14 and CCC was 17 at the time of the incident. Gramatica was 23, and # # #266039 was 62.

Both courts found that Gramatica took advantage of BBB’s youth and vulnerable situation, using his influence over her to make her submit to his sexual demands. Meanwhile, # # #266039, due to his age and relationship as CCC’s grandfather, was able to exert control over her and exploit her trust.

The SC affirmed Gramatica’s conviction under RA 7610, but modified # # #266039’s conviction from acts of lasciviousness under 𝘚𝘦𝘤𝘵𝘪𝘰𝘯 5(𝘣) 𝘰𝘧 𝘙𝘈 7610 to acts of lasciviousness under the RPC explaining that RA 7610 does not apply where the minor is entirely unaware, coerced or unconscious as the victim in that instance is not considered to have “indulged” in the sexual in*******se.

A plain and straightforward interpretation of 𝘚𝘦𝘤𝘵𝘪𝘰𝘯 5(𝘣) 𝘰𝘧 𝘙𝘈 7610 provides a clear definition of children subjected to other sexual abuse as those who indulge in sexual in*******se or lascivious conduct due to the coercion or influence of an adult.

The SC clarified the scope of lascivious conduct under 𝘚𝘦𝘤𝘵𝘪𝘰𝘯 5(𝘣) 𝘰𝘧 𝘙𝘈 7610 and distinguished it from related crimes under the RPC. To ensure uniform and consistent prosecution of cases, the Supreme Court laid down guidelines, considering also RA 11648, which raised the age of sexual consent to 16 years old.

𝙁𝙞𝙧𝙨𝙩, 𝘚𝘦𝘤𝘵𝘪𝘰𝘯 5(𝘣) 𝘰𝘧 𝘙𝘈 7610 applies to children who are 12 years of age (now 16 years old following the amendment under RA 11648) to below 18 who are subjected to sexual abuse.

𝙎𝙚𝙘𝙤𝙣𝙙, it covers situations where consent is present but defective. The minor may seem to “indulge” or agree, but does so not out of free will, but because of coercion or influence by an adult. Thus, engaging in sexual acts with a child exploited in prostitution or subjected to sexual abuse is a criminal act, regardless of apparent consent.

𝙏𝙝𝙞𝙧𝙙, it does not apply when the act involves force, intimidation, fraud, deprivation of reason, unconsciousness, or grave abuse of authority. In such cases, the crime falls under acts of lasciviousness under the RPC.

𝙁𝙤𝙪𝙧𝙩𝙝, if the victim is under 12 or under 16, and the case does not fit Section 5(b), the crime is r**e or acts of lasciviousness under the RPC.

These principles, which distinguish force and intimidation on one hand, and coercion and influence on the other, and limit RA 7610 to minors who are exploited in prostitution or sexual abuse, also apply to other sexual crimes, including r**e.

In this case, BBB was a child exploited in prostitution or other sexual abuse because she had sexual in*******se with Gramatica in exchange for some consideration, namely shabu, which makes him criminally liable under Section 5(b).

Meanwhile, 𝘚𝘦𝘤𝘵𝘪𝘰𝘯 5(𝘣) 𝘰𝘧 𝘙𝘈 7610 does not apply to # # #266039.

The Supreme Court clarified that not all acts of lasciviousness against minors aged 12 to under 18 are covered by RA 7610. The law applies only when minors are subjected to sexual abuse, such as when they “indulge” or give defective consent to the conduct.

Here, CCC did not indulge in lascivious conduct, as she was asleep and unconscious during the incident. # # #266039 did not use coercion or influence, but relied on his moral ascendancy as her grandfather, which counts as intimidation. These circumstances make # # #266039 liable for acts of lasciviousness under 𝘈𝘳𝘵𝘪𝘤𝘭𝘦 336 𝘰𝘧 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘙𝘗𝘊, rather than RA 7610.

For lascivious conduct under Section 5(b) involving BBB, Gramatica was sentenced to a maximum of 17 years, four months, and one day in prison and ordered to pay BBB PHP 150,000 in civil indemnity and damages, as well as a PHP 15,000 fine.

For acts of lasciviousness under 𝘈𝘳𝘵𝘪𝘤𝘭𝘦 336 𝘰𝘧 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘙𝘗𝘊, # # #266039 was sentenced to a maximum of six years in prison and ordered to pay CCC PHP450,000 in civil indemnity and damages with interest.

The SC acknowledged that under current laws, # # #266039, “who committed abhorrent and be***al acts against his minor granddaughter,” faces a penalty lower than that under RA 7610, and called on the legislature to amend existing laws to better protect children.

The SC calls the legislature to review and amend current laws protecting children, thus:

“𝘐𝘯 𝘭𝘪𝘯𝘦 𝘸𝘪𝘵𝘩 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘢𝘣𝘰𝘷𝘦, 𝘢𝘯𝘥 𝘪𝘯 𝘧𝘶𝘭𝘧𝘪𝘭𝘭𝘮𝘦𝘯𝘵 𝘰𝘧 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘊𝘰𝘶𝘳𝘵’𝘴 𝘥𝘶𝘵𝘺 𝘵𝘰 𝘶𝘱𝘩𝘰𝘭𝘥 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘊𝘰𝘯𝘴𝘵𝘪𝘵𝘶𝘵𝘪𝘰𝘯, 𝘸𝘩𝘪𝘤𝘩 𝘮𝘢𝘯𝘥𝘢𝘵𝘦𝘴 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘴𝘱𝘦𝘤𝘪𝘢𝘭 𝘱𝘳𝘰𝘵𝘦𝘤𝘵𝘪𝘰𝘯 𝘰𝘧 𝘤𝘩𝘪𝘭𝘥𝘳𝘦𝘯 𝘧𝘳𝘰𝘮 𝘢𝘭𝘭 𝘧𝘰𝘳𝘮𝘴 𝘰𝘧 𝘯𝘦𝘨𝘭𝘦𝘤𝘵, 𝘢𝘣𝘶𝘴𝘦, 𝘤𝘳𝘶𝘦𝘭𝘵𝘺, 𝘦𝘹𝘱𝘭𝘰𝘪𝘵𝘢𝘵𝘪𝘰𝘯 𝘢𝘯𝘥 𝘰𝘵𝘩𝘦𝘳 𝘤𝘰𝘯𝘥𝘪𝘵𝘪𝘰𝘯𝘴 𝘱𝘳𝘦𝘫𝘶𝘥𝘪𝘤𝘪𝘢𝘭 𝘵𝘰 𝘵𝘩𝘦𝘪𝘳 𝘥𝘦𝘷𝘦𝘭𝘰𝘱𝘮𝘦𝘯𝘵, 𝘭𝘦𝘵 𝘵𝘩𝘪𝘴 𝘴𝘦𝘳𝘷𝘦 𝘢𝘴 𝘢 𝘤𝘢𝘭𝘭 𝘵𝘰 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘭𝘦𝘨𝘪𝘴𝘭𝘢𝘵𝘶𝘳𝘦 𝘵𝘰 𝘧𝘶𝘭𝘧𝘪𝘭𝘭 𝘪𝘵𝘴 𝘣𝘰𝘶𝘯𝘥𝘦𝘯 𝘥𝘶𝘵𝘺 𝘰𝘧 𝘳𝘦𝘷𝘪𝘦𝘸𝘪𝘯𝘨 𝘢𝘯𝘥 𝘢𝘮𝘦𝘯𝘥𝘪𝘯𝘨 𝘰𝘶𝘳 𝘱𝘳𝘦𝘴𝘦𝘯𝘵 𝘭𝘢𝘸𝘴 𝘢𝘯𝘥 𝘦𝘯𝘴𝘶𝘳𝘪𝘯𝘨 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘴𝘢𝘧𝘦𝘵𝘺, 𝘸𝘦𝘭𝘭-𝘣𝘦𝘪𝘯𝘨, 𝘢𝘯𝘥 𝘥𝘪𝘨𝘯𝘪𝘵𝘺 𝘰𝘧 𝘰𝘶𝘳 𝘍𝘪𝘭𝘪𝘱𝘪𝘯𝘰 𝘤𝘩𝘪𝘭𝘥𝘳𝘦𝘯.”

Read the full text of the press release at https://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/?p=162863

Read the full text of the Decision https://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/?p=162842

Read the Separate Concurring Opinion of Senior Associate Justice Marvic M.V.F. Leonen at https://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/260233-266039-separate-concurring-opinion-senior-associate-justice-marvic-m-v-f-leonen/

Read the Concurring Opinion of Associate Justice Alfredo Benjamin S. Caguioa at https://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/260233-266039-concurring-opinion-associate-justice-alfredo-benjamin-s-caguioa/

Read the Separate Concurring Opinion of Associate Justice Rodil V. Zalameda at https://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/260233-266039-separate-concurring-opinion-associate-justice-rodil-v-zalameda/

Copying of this content is subject to the SC PIO’s Credit Attribution Policy: https://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/credit-attribution