Scribd
Upload
427 views1 page

People V CA and Olayon

The defendant, Gaspar Olayon, was charged with violating the Anti-Child Abuse Act for having sexual intercourse with and committing lewd acts against a 14-year-old girl. The trial court convicted Olayon, ruling that consent is not a defense. However, the Court of Appeals acquitted Olayon, finding that consensual sex is not considered child abuse under the law. The issue is whether the Court of Appeals erred in acquitting Olayon. The Supreme Court ruled no, finding that child abuse and sexual abuse are separate offenses, and that for consensual sex to be considered sexual abuse under the law, elements of coercion, influence, or intimidation must be present - which were

Uploaded by

April Guiang
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
427 views1 page

People V CA and Olayon

The defendant, Gaspar Olayon, was charged with violating the Anti-Child Abuse Act for having sexual intercourse with and committing lewd acts against a 14-year-old girl. The trial court convicted Olayon, ruling that consent is not a defense. However, the Court of Appeals acquitted Olayon, finding that consensual sex is not considered child abuse under the law. The issue is whether the Court of Appeals erred in acquitting Olayon. The Supreme Court ruled no, finding that child abuse and sexual abuse are separate offenses, and that for consensual sex to be considered sexual abuse under the law, elements of coercion, influence, or intimidation must be present - which were

Uploaded by

April Guiang
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
You are on page 1/ 1

People v CA and Olayon

1. Gaspar Olayon was charged with 2 counts of violation of Section 10(a) of RA 7610 (AntiChild Abuse Act) for allegedly having sexual intercourse and committing lewd and lascivious
acts upon AAA, then 14 years of age. He was also charged of acts of lasciviousness against
the same victim.
2. He interposed the following as his defense: AAA was his sweetheart; AAA voluntarily went
with Olayon to the house of one Duke Espiritu where the crime was committed; & the
sexual relations with AAA were with her consent.
3. In the joint trial for these 3 offenses, Olayon was acquitted in the charge for acts of
lasciviousness but he was convicted of violation of Section 10(a) of RA 7610. Trial court
ruled that Olayon cannot escape responsibility because consent is not an accepted defense
in this special law.
4. On appeal, CA reversed the trial courts decision and acquitted Olayon. REASON: Consensual
sexual intercourse with a minor is NOT classified as child abuse under Section 10 of RA No.
7610. Moreover, for the act of intercourse between Olayon to be considered sexual abuse
[under Section 5], such intercourse should have occurred due to coercion or
intimidation. However, these elements were absent as AAA freely consented to the acts.
Issue: WON CA erred in acquitting Olayon? No.
Sexual abuse (as defined under Sec. 5) is a completely distinct and separate offense
from child abuse (as defined under Sec. 10). Sec. 10 refers to acts of child
abuse prejudicial to the childs development other than child prostitution and other
sexual abuse. On the other hand, sexual abuse is defined as including the employment,
use, persuasion, inducement, enticement or coercion of a child to engage in, or assist
another person to engage in, sexual intercourse or lascivious conduct or the
molestation, prostitution, or incest with children.
Consensual sexual intercourse or even acts of lasciviousness with a minor who is 12
years old or older could constitute a violation of Section 5(b) of R.A. No. 7610.
For consensual sexual intercourse or lascivious conduct with a minor, who is not
exploited in prostitution, to thus fall within the purview of Section 5(b) of R.A. No. 7610,
persuasion, inducement, enticement or coercion of the child must be present.
If Olayon was charged under Section 5(b), instead of Section 10(a), Olayon would still be
acquitted as there was no allegation that an element of the offense (coercion or
influence or intimidation) attended its commission.

You might also like