Republic Act No. 7610, otherwise known as the "Special Protection of Children Against Abuse, Exploitation and Discrimination Act," is a powerful piece of legislation in the Philippines designed to safeguard minors. Because the law prioritizes the protection of the child, the penalties are severe, and the social stigma associated with a charge is immense.

However, the Philippine justice system operates on the fundamental principle of Presumption of Innocence. For those facing accusations under RA 7610, understanding the viable legal defenses is critical to ensuring a fair trial.

I. Fundamental Constitutional Defenses

Before diving into specific factual defenses, every accused person is entitled to constitutional safeguards:

The Right to be Presumed Innocent: The burden of proof lies entirely with the prosecution. They must prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt. If the evidence is shaky or the testimony inconsistent, the "Equipose Rule" dictates that the scales of justice must tip in favor of the accused.
The Right to Counsel: Any extrajudicial confession made without the assistance of competent and independent counsel is inadmissible in court.

II. Factual and Substantive Defenses

1. Denial and Alibi

While often considered "weak" defenses, they can be effective if supported by strong documentary or testimonial evidence.

Physical Impossibility: To prosper, an alibi must show that the accused was in another place at the time of the alleged crime and that it was physically impossible for them to be at the locus criminis (crime scene).
Corroboration: Denial must be supported by disinterested witnesses or digital footprints (CCTV, GPS logs, biometric records) to move beyond a mere "he-said, she-said" scenario.

2. Lack of Intent (Mens Rea)

In certain provisions of RA 7610, such as Section 10(a) regarding other forms of child abuse, the prosecution must prove that the acts were intended to debase, degrade, or demean the intrinsic worth and dignity of the child.

Defense: The accused may argue that the actions were not intended to abuse but were part of legitimate discipline, an accident, or lacked the specific "intent to debase" required by the law.

3. Instigation vs. Entrapment

In cases involving child trafficking or prostitution:

Entrapment (Legal): The criminal intent originates in the mind of the accused, and the police merely provide the opportunity.
Instigation (Defense): The accused had no prior intent to commit the crime, but law enforcement officers "planted" the idea or induced the accused into committing it. Instigation is a valid ground for acquittal.

4. Consent and Age of the Accused

While the consent of a minor is never a defense in RA 7610, the age of the accused might be relevant under the Juvenile Justice and Welfare Act (RA 9344). If the accused is also a minor, different legal frameworks and restorative justice principles apply.

III. Attacking the Credibility of Testimony

Since many RA 7610 cases rely heavily on the testimony of the child victim, the defense often focuses on the reliability of that testimony.

Material Inconsistencies: Highlighting "major" contradictions in the complainant's affidavits and court testimony. While the Supreme Court is often lenient with minor inconsistencies due to the trauma of children, substantial discrepancies regarding the date, place, or identity can lead to an acquittal.
The "Scorned Motive" / Improper Motive: Demonstrating that the accusation was coached, fabricated, or instigated by an adult (e.g., a parent in a bitter custody battle) to exact revenge or gain leverage.
Delayed Reporting: While not an automatic ground for dismissal (as trauma explains delay), an unexplained and lengthy delay combined with other suspicious circumstances can cast doubt on the veracity of the claim.

IV. Procedural Defenses

Failure to Establish the Age of the Victim: The prosecution must prove the victim was under 18 at the time of the incident. This is usually done through a PSA Birth Certificate. Failure to produce competent proof of age can be fatal to the prosecution's case under RA 7610.
Chain of Custody: In cases involving physical abuse where medical evidence is presented, any break in the chain of custody of medical records or physical evidence can be used to move for the exclusion of such evidence.
Prescription: Like most crimes, violations of RA 7610 have a prescriptive period. If the state takes too long to file the case (depending on the specific section violated), the right to prosecute may be extinguished.

V. The Role of the Medical Examination

If the prosecution relies on a medical certificate to prove abuse, the defense may:

Cross-examine the Physician: To determine if the injuries could have been caused by other means (accidents, sports, pre-existing conditions).
Request an Independent Evaluation: To challenge the findings of the initial medico-legal report.

Note on Jurisprudence: The Philippine Supreme Court has repeatedly held that while child abuse is an "abhorrent" crime, the "overzealousness of the courts to protect the child must not result in the injustice of convicting an innocent man." Proof beyond reasonable doubt remains the highest standard of evidence.