This case has been cited 4 times or more.
|
2012-09-24 |
PERALTA, J. |
||||
| As alleged in the Information and proven through the testimony of AAA, appellant facilitated or induced child prostitution. Children, whether male or female, who for money, profit, or any other consideration or due to the coercion or influence of any adult, syndicate or group, indulge in sexual intercourse or lascivious conduct, are deemed to be children exploited in prostitution and other sexual abuse.[24] Thus, the act of apellant in convincing AAA, who was 12 years old at that time, to go with her and thereafter, offer her for sex to a man in exchange for money makes her liable under the above-mentioned law. The purpose of the law is to provide special protection to children from all forms of abuse, neglect, cruelty, exploitation and discrimination, and other conditions prejudicial to their development.[25] A child exploited in prostitution may seem to "consent" to what is being done to her or him and may appear not to complain. However, we have held that a child who is "a person below eighteen years of age or those unable to fully take care of themselves or protect themselves from abuse, neglect, cruelty, exploitation or discrimination because of their age or mental disability or condition" is incapable of giving rational consent[26] to any lascivious act or sexual intercourse. | |||||
|
2010-08-25 |
PEREZ, J. |
||||
| Garcia was further applied by analogy in People v. Delantar[45] where it was held that the "guardian" envisioned in Section 31(c) of Republic Act No. 7610 is a person who has a legal relationship with a ward. In said case, accused was charged for violation of Section 5, Article III of Republic Act No. 7610 when he pimped an 11 year old child to at least two clients. The Court held that the prosecution failed to establish filiation albeit it considered accused as a de facto guardian. However, this was not sufficient to justify the imposition of the higher penalty pursuant to the ruling in Garcia. In addition, the Court construed the term "guardian" in this manner: Further, according to the maxim noscitur a sociis, the correct construction of a word or phrase susceptible of various meanings may be made clear and specific by considering the company of words in which it is found or with which it is associated.87 Section 31(c) of R.A. No. 7610 contains a listing of the circumstances of relationship between the perpetrator and the victim which will justify the imposition of the maximum penalty, namely when the perpetrator is an "ascendant, parent, guardian, stepparent or collateral relative within the second degree of consanguinity or affinity." It should be noted that the words with which "guardian" is associated in the provision all denote a legal relationship. From this description we may safely deduce that the guardian envisioned by law is a person who has a legal relationship with a ward. This relationship may be established either by being the ward's biological parent (natural guardian) or by adoption (legal guardian). Appellant is neither AAA's biological parent nor is he AAA's adoptive father. Clearly, appellant is not the "guardian" contemplated by law.[46] | |||||
|
2008-01-28 |
AZCUNA, J. |
||||
| Under the doctrine of noscitur a sociis, which even petitioner himself recognizes but appears to have misapplied, where a particular word or phrase is ambiguous in itself or is equally susceptible of various meanings, its meaning may be made clear and specific by considering the company of the words in which it is found or with which it is associated.[28] Stated differently, the obscurity or doubt on a particular word or phrase may be removed by reference to associated words.[29] | |||||
|
2007-09-21 |
CORONA, J. |
||||
| The harm which results from a child's bad decision in a sexual encounter may be infinitely more damaging to her than a bad business deal. Thus, the law should protect her from the harmful consequences[34] of her attempts at adult sexual behavior.[35] For this reason, a child should not be deemed to have validly consented to adult sexual activity and to surrender herself in the act of ultimate physical intimacy under a law which seeks to afford her special protection against abuse, exploitation and discrimination. (Otherwise, sexual predators like petitioner will be justified, or even unwittingly tempted by the law, to view her as fair game and vulnerable prey.) In other words, a child is presumed by law to be incapable of giving rational consent to any lascivious act or sexual intercourse.[36] | |||||