Facts:

Rodan A. Bangayan was charged with violation of Section 5(b), Article III of Republic Act No. 7610 for having sexual intercourse with AAA, a minor who was 12 years and one month old at the time, in January 2012 at Brgy. San Ramos, Municipality of Nagtipunan, Quirino. The incident was witnessed by AAA's brother, BBB, who saw Bangayan lying on top of AAA, both naked from the waist down. AAA later reported the incident to police and was medically examined by Dr. Luis Villar, who confirmed that AAA was 2-3 months pregnant at the time and that the sexual intercourse could have occurred in January 2012 or before. An Affidavit of Desistance executed by AAA when she was 14 years old stated she no longer wished to pursue the case, citing their cohabitation as husband and wife and the blessing of a baby boy. The Regional Trial Court convicted Bangayan, sentencing him to 14 years and 8 months to 20 years of imprisonment and ordering payment of damages. The Court of Appeals affirmed wit

...

Facts:

Incident and Allegations

• Bangayan was charged with having sexual intercourse with AAA, a girl who was 12 years and one month old at the time of the alleged incident in January 2012 at Brgy. San Ramos, Nagtipunan, Quirino.
• The Information alleged that Bangayan engaged in the sexual act with intent to abuse, harass, and degrade the minor and to gratify his sexual desire.
• Additional allegations noted that Bangayan was in a position of influence over AAA because of a significant age gap (approximately 15 years) and a familial relationship by virtue of being the brother of the husband of AAA’s older sister.

Evidence Presented at Trial

• Testimonies of three prosecution witnesses:
• PO2 Rosalita Manilao, who testified regarding the discovery of the incident where AAA’s brother (BBB) saw Bangayan lying on top of AAA;
• BBB, who witnessed the incident and stated that Bangayan threatened him with death if he reported it;
• Dr. Luis Villar, who conducted the medical examination of AAA and noted findings such as the abnormal appearance of the hymenal opening and physical indications of early pregnancy.
• Documentary evidence included:
• AAA’s Malaya at Kusang Loob na Salaysay;
• BBB’s sworn statement/salaysay;
• A medical certificate issued by Dr. Villar; and
• AAA’s Certificate of Live Birth.
• Additional circumstantial evidence included AAA’s subsequent conduct such as not testifying against Bangayan, her affidavit of desistance, and the fact that she continued to live with Bangayan and bore two children after the incident.

Proceedings in Lower Courts

• The Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Maddela, Quirino, Branch 38 rendered a decision finding Bangayan guilty of violation of Section 5(b), Article III of R.A. 7610, sentencing him to reclusion temporal with an imprisonment period between 14 years 8 months and 20 years, and ordering the payment of civil indemnity.
• On appeal, the Court of Appeals affirmed the conviction with modification by increasing the award of damages.
• During trial and on appeal, Bangayan argued that his ongoing relationship with AAA—with whom he had two children—demonstrated consent and, thus, should serve as an absolutory cause against his criminal liability.

Facts Leading to the Petition for Review

• Bangayan filed the Petition for Review on January 5, 2018, contending that the prosecution failed to prove all elements of sexual abuse as defined under R.A. 7610.
• Central to his argument was the contention that the sexual intercourse with AAA was consensual, noting that:
• AAA had admitted in earlier statements (as relayed by Dr. Villar) to voluntary participation in sexual relations with him;
• The subsequent cohabitation and the births of their two children reinforced the claim of a consensual relationship.
• The People, through the Office of the Solicitor General, adopted its prior brief and took no further action on a comment after the petition was filed.

Issue:

Defense of Consent and Relationship

• Whether Bangayan may invoke the defense that his ongoing relationship with AAA and the conduct showing cohabitation and procreation (i.e., the fact that they had two children) amounted to her consent.
• Whether such evidence of a consensual relationship negates the presence of coercion, intimidation, or undue influence as required under Section 5(b) of R.A. 7610.

Reconciliation of Elements under R.A. 7610 and Revised Penal Code

• Whether the elements of sexual abuse under Section 5(b) of R.A. 7610 have been completely established, particularly regarding the nature of consent of a minor aged between 12 and 18 years.
• Whether the qualifying circumstance “for money, profit, or any other consideration or due to the coercion or influence of any adult, syndicate or group” is met in this case.

Evidentiary Issues and the Role of Hearsay

• Whether the affidavits (including the Affidavit of Desistance) and the Social Case Study Report—presented without formal offer or live testimony—should be given probative value, particularly when assessing the presence or absence of consent.

Ruling:

• (Subscriber-Only)

Ratio:

• (Subscriber-Only)

Doctrine:

• (Subscriber-Only)