FACTS:

The case involves the petitioner, Michael John Z. Malto, who was initially charged with the violation of Section 5(a), Article III of Republic Act 7610, as amended. The accusation stated that he induced his 17-year-old student at Assumption College to engage in sexual intercourse. The information against him was later amended to include the allegation that the accused took advantage and exerted influence, relationship, and moral ascendancy over the complainant. The prosecution presented evidence that the accused, who was the complainant's professor, invited her and her friends to watch pornographic films, brought them to a motel, and made unwanted sexual advances towards the complainant. The complainant, being young and naive, eventually entered into a relationship with the accused.

In a separate case, the petitioner, Michael John Malto, was in a relationship with AAA. On two occasions, he engaged in sexual acts with her without her consent, threatening to end their relationship if she did not comply. AAA felt pressured and they had sexual intercourse on those occasions. AAA ended the relationship and discovered that the petitioner was involved in similar incidents with other students. Distressed, AAA confided in her mother, BBB, who filed administrative and criminal complaints against the petitioner. The trial court found the petitioner guilty of violating Article III, Section 5(a), paragraph 3 of RA 7610 and sentenced him to imprisonment. The Court of Appeals affirmed the conviction and modified the sentence. The petitioner filed a petition questioning the decision, claiming that the sexual acts were consensual and he should have been acquitted.

In another case, the petitioner was charged with the violation of Section 5(b), Article III of RA 7610, which pertained to child prostitution and other sexual abuse. However, the information against the petitioner was later amended to change the designation of the offense to a violation of Section 5(a), Article III of the same law. The petitioner argued that the amended information failed to sufficiently inform him of the offense charged, as there was a change in the designation of the offense.

ISSUES:

1. Whether the designation of the offense in the information against the petitioner is crucial for proper notification and defense.

2. Whether the designation of the offense in the information against the petitioner as "violation of Section 5(a), Article III" of RA 7610 instead of "violation of Section 5(b), Article III" of the same statute is fatal to the case.

3. Whether the designation of the offense matters in convicting the petitioner.

4. Whether the elements of Section 5(b), Article III of RA 7610 were present in this case.

5. Whether a violation of Section 5(b), Article III of RA 7610 and rape are separate and distinct crimes.

6. Whether the consent of the child is immaterial in cases involving violation of Section 5, Article III of RA 7610.

7. Whether a child can be deemed to have validly consented to adult sexual activity.

8. Whether the petitioner can enjoy the benefits of the Indeterminate Sentence Law.

9. Whether the award of damages should be modified.

10. Whether or not the petitioner is guilty of violating Section 5(b), Article III of RA 7610.

11. Whether or not the petitioner should be awarded exemplary damages.

RULING:

1. The designation of the offense in the information is important to avoid surprise on the accused and to provide them with the opportunity to prepare a proper defense. However, the failure to designate the offense by statute or the erroneous specification of the law violated does not invalidate the information if the facts alleged clearly recite the elements of the crime charged.

2. The designation of the offense in the information against the petitioner was incorrect, as it stated "violation of Section 5(a), Article III" instead of "violation of Section 5(b), Article III" of RA 7610. However, this error does not affect the charges against the petitioner, as the facts stated in the information correctly make out a charge for violation of Section 5(b), Article III of the same statute.

3. The designation of the offense does not matter as long as the facts recited in the information and proven in trial support the offense. The conviction of the petitioner based on the facts presented in the case was proper.

4. The elements of Section 5(b), Article III of RA 7610 were present in this case. The petitioner committed lascivious conduct and sexual intercourse with the offended party who was a minor.

5. Violation of Section 5(b), Article III of RA 7610 and rape are separate and distinct crimes. The petitioner can be convicted for violation of Section 5(b), Article III of RA 7610 even if he did not commit rape.

6. The consent of the child is immaterial in cases involving violation of Section 5, Article III of RA 7610. Unlike rape, consent is not a defense in cases of child abuse under RA 7610. The mere act of engaging in sexual intercourse or committing lascivious conduct with a child who is exploited in prostitution or subjected to sexual abuse constitutes the offense.

7. A child cannot be deemed to have validly consented to adult sexual activity. The law seeks to afford children special protection against abuse, exploitation, and discrimination. A child is presumed incapable of giving rational consent to any lascivious act or sexual intercourse. The best interest of the child is the paramount consideration in all actions concerning them.

8. The penalty for the violation of the provisions of the law involved is reclusion temporal in its medium period to reclusion perpetua. Since the penalty provided is taken from the range of penalties in the Revised Penal Code, the petitioner is entitled to the benefits of the Indeterminate Sentence Law.

9. The trial court correctly awarded civil indemnity to the child, as every person criminally liable is civilly liable. However, the grant of moral and exemplary damages should be separate items of award. The child is entitled to moral damages, but exemplary damages are unwarranted in the absence of an aggravating circumstance.

10. The petitioner is found guilty of violating Section 5(b), Article III of RA 7610, as amended, and is sentenced to 14 years and 8 months of reclusion temporal as minimum to 20 years of reclusion temporal as maximum.

11. The grant of exemplary damages to the victim is unwarranted.

PRINCIPLES:

• The factual allegations in the information, not the designation of the offense, determine the crime being charged.

• The designation of the offense in the information is crucial for proper notification and defense. However, it does not invalidate the information if the facts alleged clearly portray the elements of the crime charged.

• The designation of the offense does not matter as long as the facts proven support the offense.

• Consent is immaterial in cases involving violation of Section 5, Article III of RA 7610.

• Violation of Section 5(b), Article III of RA 7610 and rape are separate and distinct crimes.

• The State, as parens patriae, is under an obligation to minimize the risk of harm to children who are incapable of fully understanding or knowing the nature or import of their actions.

• A child cannot be deemed to have validly consented to adult sexual activity and should be protected from the harmful consequences of their attempts at such behavior.

• The best interest of the child is the paramount consideration in all actions concerning them.

• The penalty for the violation of the provisions of the law involved can be subject to the benefits of the Indeterminate Sentence Law.

• Every person criminally liable is civilly liable, and the defendant shall be liable for all damages which are the natural and probable consequences of the act or omission complained of.

• Violation of Section 5(b), Article III of RA 7610 is punishable by imprisonment.

• The grant of exemplary damages is not automatic and depends on the circumstances of the case.