REPUBLIC ACT NO.

11648, March 04, 2022

an act promoting for STRONGER PROTECTION AGAINST RAPE AND SEXUAL EXPLOITATION AND ABUSE,
INCREASING THE AGE FOR DETERMINING THE COMMISSION OF STATUTORY RAPE, amending for the purpose
ACT NO. 3815, as amended, otherwise known as "THE REVISED PENAL CODE," REPUBLIC ACT NO. 8353, also
known as "THE ANTI-RAPE LAW OF 1997," and REPUBLIC ACT NO. 7610, as amended, otherwise known as the
"SPECIAL PROTECTION OF CHILDREN AGAINST ABUSE, EXPLOITATION AND DISCRIMINATION ACT"

Goof evening everyone and good evening attorney Today I will present Republic Act No. 11648, which was enacted on
March 4, 2022. This law aims to strengthen the protection of children against rape and sexual exploitation by
raising the age of statutory rape and amending several key laws including the Revised Penal Code, RA 8353 (Anti-
Rape Law of 1997), and RA 7610 (Special Protection of Children Act)."

Purpose of RA 11648

 Strengthen legal protection for minors against rape and sexual abuse

 Amend outdated age definitions in the Revised Penal Code

 Clarify legal definitions of non-abusive and non-exploitative sexual acts

 Close legal loopholes on consensual sex among teenagers

"The law was passed to protect children better, especially from rape. Before RA 11648, the age for statutory rape was 12, which
was considered too low. The law updates the age to 16 and also defines when consensual sexual activity between teens does not
amount to criminal liability."

SECTION 1 -

"Article 266-A. Rape; When and How Committed. - Rape is committed:

"1) By a person who shall have carnal knowledge of another person under any of the following circumstances:

a) Through force, threat, or intimidation;

"b) When the offended party is deprived of reason or otherwise unconscious;

"c) By means of fraudulent machination or grave abuse of authority; and

d) When the offended party is under sixteen (16) years of age or is demented, even though none of the
circumstances mentioned above be present: Provided, That there shall be no criminal liability on the part of a person
having carnal knowledge of another person under sixteen (16) years of age when the age difference between the
parties is not more than three (3) years, and the sexual act in question is proven to be consensual, non-abusive, and
non-exploitative: Provided, further, That if the victim is under thirteen (13) years of age, this exception shall not
apply.

"As used in this Act, non-abusive shall mean the absence of undue influence, intimidation, fraudulent machinations,
coercion, threat, physical, sexual, psychological, or mental injury or maltreatment, either with intention or through
neglect, during the conduct of sexual activities with the child victim. On the other hand, non-exploitative shall mean
ℒαwρhi ৷
there is no actual or attempted act or acts of unfairly taking advantage of the child's position of vulnerability,
differential power, or trust during the conduct of sexual activities."

SECTION 1 - Article 266-A: Definition of Rape Updated

 Old age of statutory rape: below 12 years old

 New age under RA 11648: under 16 years old

 Exception: No criminal liability if:

 Age gap is not more than 3 years

 Sexual act is consensual
 Act is non-abusive and non-exploitative

 If victim is under 13, the exception does not apply

"Under Article 266-A of the Revised Penal Code, as amended, statutory rape now includes victims under 16. This means even if
there's no force or intimidation, sex with someone under 16 can be rape—unless certain exceptions apply."

"ThE Exception clause mentioned in this provision recognizes the reality of teenage relationships. For example, a 16-year-old and a
15-year-old in a consensual relationship would not automatically be charged with rape. But this only applies if the relationship is
healthy, equal, and without abuse."

"The law now defines what 'non-abusive' and 'non-exploitative' mean. These help the courts distinguish between actual abuse
and a mutually consensual teenage relationship. Still, these are interpreted very strictly to protect minors."

"To conclude, RA 11648 provides stronger legal protection against sexual abuse of minors. It also carefully balances protection
with reality by not criminalizing consensual, equal teen relationships.

TAKE NOTE:

THE ONLY SUBJECT OF INQUIRY IN STATUTORY RAPE IS THE AGE OF THE VICTIM AND WON THE CARNAL KNOWLEDGE TOOK PLACE

Because in statutory rape, the law presumes that does not and cannot have the will of her own on account of her age.

SECTION 2 - Articles 337 and 338 of Act No. 3815, otherwise known as "The Revised Penal Code" are hereby amended to
read as follows:

"Article 337. Qualified seduction. - The seduction of a minor, sixteen and over but under eighteen years of age, committed by
any person in public authority, priest, home-servant, domestic, guardian, teacher, or any person who, in any capacity, shall be
entrusted with the education or custody of the minor seduced, shall be punished by prision correccional in its minimum and
medium periods.

Elements
 1. Offended party is a minor
2. The offended party is sixteen and over but under 18 years of age

3. Offender had sexual intercourse with the offended party.

4. There is abuse of authority, confidence, or relationship on the part of the offender.

Offenders

1. person in public authority,

2. priest,

3. house servant,

4. domestic servant,

5. guardian,

6. teacher, one entrusted with the education or custody

of the offended party.

"The penalty next higher in degree shall be imposed upon any person who shall seduce his sister or descendant, whether or
not she be a virgin or over eighteen years of age.

Elements

1. Offended party need not be a virgin or she may be over 18 years old
2. Offender has sexual intercourse with her

3. Offender is her brother or ascendant, whether legitimate or illegitimate.

"Under the provisions of this Chapter, seduction is committed when the offender have carnal knowledge of ANY OF THE
PERSONS and under the circumstances described therein."

"Article 338. Simple seduction. - The seduction of a minor, sixteen and over but under eighteen years of age, committed by
means of deceit, shall be punished by arresto mayor."

Elements

1. Offended party is a minor, over 16 but under 18 years of age.

2. Offender has sexual intercourse with her; and
 3. It is committed by means of deceit.

ANTI FENCING LAW

G.R. No. 225695

IRENEO CAHULOGAN, Petitioner

vs.
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Respondent

Summary:
This case involves petitioner Ireneo Cahuloagan who was convicted
of Fencing under Presidential Decree No. 1612 (Anti-Fencing Law
of 1979). The case stemmed from Cahuloagan’s purchase and
possession of 210 cases of Coca-Cola products worth P52,476
that were stolen by a truck driver and helper from their employer,
Johnson Tan. Cahuloagan was found guilty by the Regional Trial
Court, which was affirmed by the Court of Appeals. The Supreme
Court denied Cahuloagan’s petition and upheld his conviction, but
modified the penalty imposed.

Doctrine:
"Time and again, it has been held that an appeal in criminal cases
opens the entire case for review, and it is the duty of the
reviewing tribunal to correct, cite, and appreciate errors in the
appealed judgment whether they are assigned or unassigned. The
appeal confers the appellate court full jurisdiction over the case
and renders such court competent to examine records, revise the
judgment appealed from, increase the penalty, and cite the
proper provision of the penal law."

"The essential elements of the crime of fencing are as follows:

(a) a crime of robbery or theft has been committed;
(b) the accused, who is not a principal or an accomplice in the commission of the
crime of robbery or theft, buys, receives, possesses, keeps,
acquires, conceals, sells or disposes, or buys and sells, or in any
manner deals in any article, item, object or anything of value,
which has been derived from the proceeds of the crime of
robbery or theft;
(c) the accused knew or should have known that the said article, item, object or
anything of value has been derived from the proceeds of the crime of robbery or
theft; and
(d)there is, on the part of one accused, intent to gain for oneself or for another."
G.R. No. 225695

IRENEO CAHULOGAN, Petitioner

vs.
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Respondent

Facts of the Case:

1. Date of Incident:
o January 14, 2011, around 4:00 PM
o Location: Bugo, Cagayan de Oro City, Philippines
2. People Involved:
o Johnson Tan – Private complainant; a businessman transporting Coca-Cola products
o Braulio Lopez and Loreto Lariosa – Truck driver and helper of Tan
o Petitioner (Accused) – Owner of the store where the products were delivered
3. Incident Details:
o Tan instructed Lopez and Lariosa to deliver 210 cases of Coca-Cola products worth ₱52,476.00 to
Demins Store.
o Instead, they delivered the items to the petitioner’s store.
o When Tan discovered the misdelivery, he approached the petitioner to retrieve the products.
o The petitioner refused, claiming he bought the items from Lariosa for ₱50,000.00, though he had no
receipt to prove the transaction.
o Tan insisted on pulling out the items, arguing Lariosa had no authority to sell them.
o Fearing termination of his contract with Coca-Cola, Tan negotiated a compromise: the petitioner
delivered ₱20,000.00 worth of empty bottles as partial compensation (Agreement dated January 18,
2011).
o Despite this, Tan filed a criminal complaint for Fencing against the petitioner and reportedly also filed
Theft charges against Lariosa.
4. Court Proceedings:
o April 18, 2011: Information for Fencing was filed against the petitioner under Presidential Decree No.
1612 (Anti-Fencing Law).
o Upon arraignment, the petitioner pleaded not guilty and chose not to present evidence, instead
submitting a memorandum claiming the prosecution failed to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt.
5. RTC Ruling (October 4, 2013):
o Petitioner was found guilty of Fencing.
o Sentenced to 10 years and 1 day (prision mayor minimum) to 15 years (reclusion temporal
maximum).
o The RTC found that:
 Lariosa had stolen the items from Tan.
 Petitioner possessed the stolen goods and should have known they were unlawfully obtained,
due to:
 The discounted price
 Lack of receipts
 Unusual transaction (no demand for bottle replacement)
6. CA Ruling (November 6, 2015):
o Affirmed RTC's conviction.
o Held that petitioner’s possession of the stolen items constituted prima facie evidence of Fencing, which
he failed to rebut.
7. Motion for Reconsideration:
o Filed by petitioner but denied in a CA Resolution dated June 8, 2016.
o Petitioner then elevated the case to the Supreme Court via petition.
Issue: Whether or not the petitioner is guilty to PD No. 1612, otherwise known as Anti-Fencing Law of 1979.

Ruling: YES. Guilty

The essential elements of the crime of fencing are as follows:

(a) a crime of robbery or theft has been committed;

(b) the accused, who is not a principal or an accomplice in the commission of the crime of robbery or theft, buys, receives,
possesses, keeps, acquires, conceals, sells or disposes, or buys and sells, or in any manner deals in any article, item, object or
anything of value, which has been derived from the proceeds of the crime of robbery or theft;

(c) the accused knew or should have known that the said article, item, object or anything of value has been derived from the
proceeds of the crime of robbery or theft; and

(d) there is, on the part of one accused, intent to gain for oneself or for another.

Notably, Fencing is a malum prohibitum, and PD 1612 creates a prima facie presumption of Fencing from evidence of

possession by the accused of any good, article, item, object or anything of value, which has been

the subject of robbery or theft; and prescribes a higher penalty based on the value of the property.

✅ Ruling on the Issue:

Yes, the Supreme Court affirmed that the petitioner, Ireneo Cahulogan, is guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the
crime of Fencing as defined and penalized under Presidential Decree No. 1612 (Anti-Fencing Law).

💡 Rationale Behind the Ruling:

The Supreme Court found that all elements of the crime of Fencing were proven beyond reasonable doubt,
specifically:

1. There was a crime of theft committed

– Petitioner bought 210 cases of Coca-Cola products that were stolen by the truck helper Lariosa from his
employer, Johnson Tan.
2. Petitioner acquired/possessed items derived from theft
– He knowingly received and kept the stolen products without proper documentation like delivery or official
receipts.
3. He knew or should have known the items were stolen
– The lack of receipts, below-market price (₱50,000 for goods worth ₱52,476), and unusual transaction (no
returnable bottles demanded) were enough to presume bad faith.
4. Intent to gain
– The petitioner benefitted from the discounted price and tried to keep the items, refusing to return them when
confronted.

🚨 Important Note: Fencing is a malum prohibitum crime, meaning criminal intent is not required — it is enough
that the act is prohibited and committed.

⚖️Legal Doctrines Applied:

 Section 2, PD 1612 defines Fencing.

 Prima facie presumption arises from mere possession of stolen property.
 Fencing is punished as a principal offense, not merely as an accessory.
  Despite being a special law, the penalty uses Revised Penal Code nomenclature, so the Indeterminate
Sentence Law applies.

📌 Penalty Imposed:

Although the lower court imposed 10 to 15 years of reclusion temporal, the Supreme Court modified the penalty
applying the Indeterminate Sentence Law:

 Minimum: 4 years, 2 months, and 1 day of prision correccional

 Maximum: 15 years of reclusion temporal

🏛️Legislative Concern:

The Court flagged a penalty disparity after the passage of RA 10951, which updated Theft penalties but not the
penalties for Fencing under PD 1612.

⚠️A fence (accessory) might now be punished more severely than the thief (principal).

As a result, the Court invoked Article 5 of the RPC and directed that copies of this decision be sent to Congress and
the President for legislative correction.

🎤 Suggested Oral Summary (for Class Recitation):

“In Cahulogan v. People, the Supreme Court ruled that the petitioner is guilty of Fencing under PD 1612. The Court
held that all essential elements of the crime were met — including that he bought stolen property without proper
documentation, at a suspiciously low price, and in a manner contrary to industry practice. Fencing, being a malum
prohibitum, does not require proof of criminal intent — mere possession of stolen property creates a presumption of
guilt. The Court affirmed the conviction and imposed a modified indeterminate sentence, and further called Congress
to amend PD 1612, noting a disparity caused by RA 10951, which adjusted penalties for Theft but not for Fencing.”