Overview: two main pillars of liability

In Philippine criminal law, sexual violence against minors is prosecuted mainly through:

The Revised Penal Code (RPC), as amended — covers rape, sexual assault (rape by sexual assault), acts of lasciviousness, and other related offenses.
Republic Act No. 7610 (Special Protection of Children Against Abuse, Exploitation and Discrimination Act) — targets child prostitution and “other sexual abuse”, plus broader child abuse and exploitation acts.

These laws often overlap factually (same victim, same sexual act) but are not interchangeable: each has its own elements, theory of harm, and charging considerations.

This article is for general legal education in Philippine context and is not legal advice.

Key definitions that control almost everything

Who is a “child”?

Under RA 7610, a “child” generally means a person below 18; it may also include a person 18 or older who cannot fully protect themselves because of a physical or mental condition (as recognized in the law’s definitions/implementing rules). Under the RPC, “minority” matters for specific crimes (like statutory rape), qualifying circumstances, and penalty upgrades.

“Sexual assault” vs “sexual abuse” (important distinction)

RPC “sexual assault” is a form of rape (rape by sexual assault): it focuses on sexual intrusion (penetration) using force/intimidation, abuse of authority, or when the victim is below the statutory age/otherwise incapacitated under the rape provisions.
RA 7610 “other sexual abuse” focuses on sexual intercourse or lascivious conduct with a child exploited in prostitution or subjected to sexual abuse, typically involving coercion, influence, or exploitative circumstances.

Age of sexual consent (statutory rape framework)

Philippine law has moved away from the old, very-low threshold. Today, sexual acts with children below the age of consent can be statutory rape, and “consent” is not a defense when the statutory conditions apply. There is also a close-in-age concept recognized in the modern statutory framework (commonly discussed as the “Romeo and Juliet” principle) that may bar prosecution in narrow situations, but it does not protect exploitative relationships (e.g., teacher-student, guardian-ward, authority/ascendancy, intimidation, or coercion).

I. Crimes under the Revised Penal Code (RPC)

A. Rape (Article 266-A and related provisions)

Rape under the RPC is committed in two main ways:

1) Rape by Sexual Intercourse

This generally involves carnal knowledge (sexual intercourse) under any of the circumstances recognized by the rape law, such as:

Force, threat, or intimidation
When the victim is deprived of reason or unconscious
When the victim is under the statutory age (statutory rape) or otherwise legally incapable of valid consent under the statute
When there is abuse of authority or moral ascendancy in situations recognized by jurisprudence (common in child cases where the offender is a parent, step-parent, guardian, relative, teacher, live-in partner of a parent, etc.)

Child-specific realities: In cases involving children, courts recognize that:

Physical resistance is not required where intimidation, fear, or authority is present.
“Force” can be moral, not only physical (e.g., threats, manipulation, parental authority).
Delay in reporting is often explained by fear, shame, threats, dependence, or trauma.

2) Rape by Sexual Assault (also under Article 266-A)

Often called “rape by sexual assault”, this covers sexual intrusion other than penile-vaginal intercourse, such as penetration (however slight) of:

the mouth or anal orifice by the penis, or
the genital or anal orifice by any object or instrument,

when done under circumstances that make it rape (force/intimidation, victim incapacity, statutory conditions, etc.).

Why this matters: Many child sexual assault cases involve acts that are not “intercourse” in the traditional sense, and the correct classification affects both charging and penalty.

B. Qualified rape (rape with qualifying circumstances)

Rape becomes qualified (and punished more severely) when certain circumstances exist—commonly in child cases, such as:

Victim is a minor and offender is a parent/ascendant/guardian/relative within certain degrees, or the common-law spouse of the parent
Victim is under a specified age threshold in the statute for certain qualifiers
Rape committed by two or more persons (depending on statutory phrasing and proof)
Rape resulting in or accompanied by serious injuries, or other qualifying outcomes recognized by law

Penalty note: The Philippines no longer implements the death penalty; when older laws speak of “death,” the operational penalty is typically reclusion perpetua, often with restrictions affecting parole depending on the qualifying framework.

C. Attempted rape / frustrated rape (conceptual)

Philippine law recognizes attempted rape where overt acts directly commence the commission of rape but do not consummate because of causes other than the offender’s desistance. In practice, many “attempt” fact patterns may instead be charged as acts of lasciviousness if penetration/carnal knowledge cannot be proved.

D. Acts of Lasciviousness (Article 336)

Acts of lasciviousness penalize lewd acts committed under circumstances similar to rape triggers (force/intimidation, victim incapacity, etc.) without the penetration required for rape.

In child cases, acts of lasciviousness commonly covers:

groping, fondling, forced touching,
forced kissing, rubbing against the child,
compelling a child to touch the offender.

Critical dividing line:

If the prosecution can prove penetration (however slight, depending on the act charged), it may be rape/sexual assault.
If not, it may be acts of lasciviousness—unless the facts fit RA 7610 (discussed below).

E. Other related RPC offenses that may arise in child sexual cases

Depending on facts, prosecutors may also consider:

Corruption of minors and related provisions (historically used for exploitation/immorality frameworks)
White slave trade / procurement type offenses in older code provisions (often now addressed more directly by special laws, but RPC concepts still appear in discussions)
Grave coercion / threats (when distinct acts are provable separately)
Unjust vexation is sometimes misused in practice, but it is generally not appropriate where sexual elements exist and stronger statutes apply.

Modern practice frequently relies on special laws (anti-trafficking, child pornography, online sexual abuse) alongside or instead of older RPC morality provisions when the facts involve exploitation systems, online abuse, or commercial elements.

II. Crimes under RA 7610 (Special Protection of Children)

RA 7610 is often associated with child abuse, but for sexual cases, the centerpiece is Section 5: Child Prostitution and Other Sexual Abuse.

A. Section 5(a): Child prostitution

This typically covers persons who:

engage a child in prostitution,
profit from, manage, or facilitate child prostitution,
recruit or coerce a child into commercial sexual exploitation,
or otherwise participate in maintaining a child in prostitution.

This is aimed at commercial sexual exploitation, not merely private/offline abuse (though the line can blur when money, favors, “transactions,” or third-party facilitation exists).

B. Section 5(b): “Other sexual abuse”

This provision punishes persons who commit sexual intercourse or lascivious conduct with a child who is:

exploited in prostitution, or
subjected to other sexual abuse under coercive/exploitative circumstances recognized by law and its implementing rules.

How it’s commonly used in practice: RA 7610 Section 5(b) is often invoked where:

the act is “sexual” but may not meet the evidentiary threshold for rape,
the child is shown to be under coercion, influence, intimidation, or exploitation, or
the case context involves exploitation networks, or a pattern of abuse with leverage, dependency, or profiteering.

C. Section 5(c): Attempt to commit child prostitution or other sexual abuse

Punishes attempts aligned with Section 5 acts, tailored to the special-law framework.

D. Section 10(a): Other acts of child abuse (sometimes used, but controversial in sexual contexts)

Section 10(a) penalizes other acts of child abuse, cruelty, or exploitation not covered elsewhere. In some case theories, it has been charged for “molestation”-type behavior when prosecutors argue that Section 5 doesn’t fit. However, when the facts are clearly sexual, better practice is usually to analyze Section 5(b) and/or RPC acts of lasciviousness/rape, because mischarging can cause acquittals.

Practical takeaway: For sexual misconduct, Section 5 is generally the core RA 7610 anchor; Section 10(a) is more of a residual provision and must be handled carefully.

III. Choosing between RPC and RA 7610 when facts overlap

A. The same touching can point to different crimes

Example patterns:

Penetration proved + statutory/force circumstances → RPC rape / rape by sexual assault
No penetration proved but lewd acts proved + coercion/force/authority → RPC acts of lasciviousness
Lewd acts/sexual intercourse + child exploitation/prostitution/sexual abuse framework → RA 7610 Section 5(b)
Commercial sexual exploitation / facilitation / pimping → RA 7610 Section 5(a) (often plus other special laws)

B. Can an offender be convicted under both for the same act?

For a single act, the State generally cannot punish twice for the same offense in a way that violates double jeopardy principles. Prosecutors typically select the charge that best fits the facts and evidence and carries the appropriate penalty. However, separate acts (e.g., repeated abuse on different dates, different sexual acts, plus separate facilitation/procurement) can lead to multiple charges.

C. Evidentiary strategy often drives charging

Child sexual cases rise or fall on proof. Prosecutors consider:

whether medical findings exist (but lack of findings is not fatal),
whether the child can narrate penetration or intrusion clearly,
whether there are admissions, digital evidence, corroborating witnesses, or pattern evidence,
the child’s developmental ability to testify (handled under child witness rules).

IV. Penalties and civil liability (high-level, practical view)

A. RPC penalties (general)

Rape is among the most severely punished crimes (reclusion perpetua is typical, with qualifiers affecting parole consequences).
Rape by sexual assault carries severe imprisonment but generally lower than qualified rape by intercourse (depending on qualifying facts).
Acts of lasciviousness is punished with imprisonment lower than rape but still serious, and aggravating circumstances can increase it.

B. RA 7610 penalties (general)

RA 7610 imposes heavy penalties, especially for child prostitution and other sexual abuse. These are special-law penalties and can be comparable to or, in some cases, strategically more viable than RPC charges when penetration is hard to prove but exploitation/coercion is clear.

C. Civil liability always follows

A criminal conviction typically carries civil awards such as:

civil indemnity,
moral damages,
exemplary damages (especially when aggravating circumstances exist),
plus restitution where applicable.

Philippine courts routinely award damages in rape/child abuse convictions; amounts vary by the offense and prevailing jurisprudence.

V. Procedure and child-protective rules in litigation

A. Venue and courts: Family Courts and child-sensitive handling

Many child sexual offense prosecutions are handled within the Family Courts framework, with child-sensitive procedures and protective measures.

B. Child Witness Rule and protective measures

Philippine rules allow child-friendly mechanisms such as:

testimony in a manner that reduces trauma (e.g., controlled questioning, protective orders),
limits on harassing or irrelevant sexual history lines of questioning,
privacy protections and confidentiality of identity in certain contexts.

C. Evidence realities unique to child sexual cases

Courts frequently reiterate that:

a child’s credible testimony can be sufficient,
absence of physical injuries does not negate abuse,
delayed disclosure is common and not automatically a credibility killer,
intimidation can be psychological, especially when the offender is a trusted adult.

VI. Defenses and issues that frequently appear

A. “Consent” and minors

In statutory rape settings, consent is legally irrelevant.
Even when “consent” is claimed, courts examine power dynamics, authority, grooming, threats, and dependency.

B. Denial and alibi

Common defenses include denial, alibi, and attacks on credibility. These defenses often fail when:

the child’s testimony is consistent and credible,
circumstances show opportunity and pattern,
corroborating details exist (behavioral disclosure, witnesses to opportunity, digital traces).

C. Improper charging as a recurring risk

A major cause of acquittal is mismatch between alleged facts and statutory elements (e.g., charging rape without proof of penetration; charging a residual child abuse provision when Section 5(b) is the right fit, or vice versa). Good legal practice is to align:

the child’s narrative capability,
the physical evidence (if any),
and the legal definition of the act.

VII. Related special laws often paired with RPC/RA 7610 (context you should know)

Even if your focus is RPC + RA 7610, modern child sexual cases often involve:

Anti-Child Pornography (for photos/videos/online sharing)
Anti-Trafficking in Persons (recruitment/transport/harboring/exploitation)
Online Sexual Abuse and Exploitation of Children (OSAEC) enforcement frameworks
Safe Spaces / Sexual Harassment laws in certain environments (school/work/public spaces)
VAWC (when the victim is a woman/child in specific relationship contexts)

These can dramatically change investigative tools, liability of facilitators, and digital evidence handling.

VIII. Practical “charging map” (simplified)

Penetration (intercourse) + child below statutory age / force / intimidation / incapacity → RPC Rape (by sexual intercourse)
Penetration by object / oral / anal + qualifying rape circumstances → RPC Rape by Sexual Assault
Lewd touching, no penetration, but force/intimidation/authority → RPC Acts of Lasciviousness
Sexual intercourse or lewd conduct + child in prostitution/exploitation/other sexual abuse setting → RA 7610 Sec. 5(b)
Commercial sexual exploitation / facilitation / profiting → RA 7610 Sec. 5(a) (often alongside other special laws)

Conclusion

Sexual assault against children in the Philippines is prosecuted through a dual system: the RPC (rape/sexual assault/acts of lasciviousness) and RA 7610 (child prostitution and other sexual abuse, plus broader anti-abuse provisions). The “right” charge is determined by (1) the specific sexual act, (2) the child’s age and legal capacity to consent, (3) the presence of force, intimidation, authority, grooming, or exploitation, and (4) the available proof.

If you want, I can also write a second version formatted as a publishable law-journal style piece (with footnote-style citations placeholders, case-theory sections, and a prosecution/defense checklist), while still keeping it non-search and Philippine-context only.