JEFFREY GRAMATICA Y LAURISTA, PETITIONER, VS. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, RESPONDENT. [G.R. No. 266039] PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, VS. XXX266039, ** ACCUSED-APPELLANT.
- G.R. Number: G.R. No. 260233
- Promulgated: 2025-08-12
- Ponente: Inting, J.
Doctrine
RA 7610's definitions of 'lascivious conduct', 'children exploited in prostitution', and 'other sexual abuse' must be applied with distinctions; a single act of lascivious conduct can fall under Section 5(b) for victims 12–18, while victims under 12 implicate RPC provisions.
Coercion, intimidation, or moral ascendancy are not always material elements under certain RA 7610 provisions; statutory protections presume incapacity of minors in some contexts, affecting which statute (RA 7610 or RPC) applies.
Facts
Petitioner Jeffrey Laurista Gramatica faced multiple criminal cases: one for alleged violation of Section 5 of RA 9165 (drug offense) and another for lascivious conduct under Section 5(b) of RA 7610 (child sexual abuse).
The Court of Appeals had affirmed convictions in related cases, and different appellate dispositions are reflected for distinct accusedes (including XXX266039) in separate docketed matters.
The Court considered whether RA 7610 supplanted the Revised Penal Code regarding acts of lasciviousness against minors and clarified definitions like 'lascivious conduct', 'children exploited in prostitution', and 'other sexual abuse.'
The Court found gaps and confusion in prior jurisprudence (e.g., Tulagan, Quimvel) and undertook to resolve whether coercion/force distinctions determine the applicable statute for minor sexual abuse cases.
Issues
Whether the conviction for lascivious conduct under Section 5(b) of RA 7610 was proper, or whether acts of lasciviousness against minors should instead be prosecuted under the Revised Penal Code.
Whether the prosecution proved beyond reasonable doubt the elements of lascivious conduct under Section 5(b) of RA 7610 and/or the elements of the relevant RPC provisions in the cases before the Court.
Ruling
In G.R. No. 260233, the Court DENIED the petition and AFFIRMED the CA decision with modifications; Gramatica was convicted of lascivious conduct under Section 5(b) of RA 7610 in one case and acquitted of RA 9165 in another (acquittal in Criminal Case No. 15-CR-10794).
In G.R. No. 266039, the appeal was DISMISSED; the CA conviction was AFFIRMED WITH MODIFICATION finding XXX266039 guilty of acts of lasciviousness under Article 336 of the RPC and imposing revised penalties and damages.
Where proof was lacking for RA 7610 elements in one instance, the Court held that the elements required under RA 7610 were not met (no consent, victim asleep), leading to acquittal or conviction under RPC as appropriate on the facts.