Malto vs. People G.R. No.164733, September 21, 2007

 
Facts:
In the Year 1996, Malto  and private respondent AAA started to frequently exchange messages and calls. Their conversation always started innocently but he had a way of veering the subject to sex. Soon, they had a "mutual understanding" and became sweethearts. On November 19, 1997, AAA agreed to have lunch with petitioner outside the premises of the college. She was surprised when he brought her to Queensland Lodge on Harrison St. in Pasay City. Once inside the motel room, he kissed her at the back and neck, touched her breasts and placed his hand inside her blouse. She resisted his advances but he was too strong for her. He stopped only when she got angry at him. 
On November 26, 1997, Malto asked AAA to come with him so that they could talk in private. He again brought her to Queensland Lodge. As soon as they were inside the room, he took off his shirt, lay down in bed and told her, "halika na, dito na tayo mag-usap." She refused but he dragged her towards the bed, kissed her lips, neck and breasts and unsnapped her brassiere. She struggled to stop him but he overpowered her. He went on top of her, lowered her pants and touched her private part. He tried to penetrate her but she pushed him away forcefully and she sat up in bed. He hugged her tightly saying, "Sige na, AAA, pumayag ka na, I won’t hurt you." She refused and said, "Mike, ayoko." Pressured and afraid of his threat to end their relationship, she hesitantly replied "Fine." On hearing this, he quickly undressed while commenting "ibibigay mo rin pala, pinahirapan mo pa ako" and laughed. They had sexual intercourse. 
In July 1999, AAA ended her relationship with petitioner. She learned that he was either intimately involved with or was sexually harassing his students in Assumption College and in other colleges where he taught. On learning what her daughter underwent in the hands of petitioner, BBB filed an administrative complaint in Assumption College against him. She also lodged a complaint in the Office of the City Prosecutor of Pasay City which led to the filing of Criminal Case No. 00-0691. 

Issue:
Whether or not the Indeterminate Sentence Law can be applied
​
Held:
Yes. The penalty prescribed for violation of the provisions of Section 5, Article III of R.A. 7610 is reclusion temporal in its medium period to reclusion perpetua. In the absence of any mitigating or aggravating circumstance, the proper imposable penalty is reclusion temporal in its maximum period, the medium of the penalty prescribed by the law. Notwithstanding that RA 7610 is a special law, petitioner may enjoy the benefits of the Indeterminate Sentence Law. Since the penalty provided in RA 7610 is taken from the range of penalties in the Revised Penal Code, it is covered by the first clause of Section 1 of the Indeterminate Sentence Law. Thus, he is entitled to a maximum term which should be within the range of the proper imposable penalty of reclusion temporal in its maximum period and a minimum term to be taken within the range of the penalty next lower to that prescribed by the law: prision mayor in its medium period to reclusion temporal in its minimum period (ranging from 8 years and 1 day to 14 years and 8 months).