Case Summary (G.R. No. 235610)
Trial Court Ruling (RTC)
The Regional Trial Court convicted Bangayan of violation of Section 5(b), Article III of R.A. 7610, sentencing him to 14 years and eight months to 20 years reclusion temporal, crediting preventive detention. The RTC awarded AAA ₱50,000 each for civil indemnity, moral and exemplary damages. It found:
- Elements of sexual abuse under R.A. 7610 established—Bangayan had intercourse with a minor.
- Moral ascendancy over AAA due to a 15-year age gap and relationship as her sister’s brother-in-law.
- Child’s consent immaterial.
- Affidavit of Desistance inadmissible hearsay.
Court of Appeals Decision
The CA denied Bangayan’s appeal, affirming conviction but increasing damages to ₱75,000 each. It held:
- Sexual intercourse with a child under coercion or influence constitutes “other sexual abuse.”
- A 15-year age difference and petitioner’s status rendered AAA vulnerable.
- Consent of child under R.A. 7610 is immaterial; “Sweetheart Theory” unacceptable in child-abuse cases.
Issue on Review
Whether consent of AAA and petitioner’s ongoing relationship—producing two children—can absolve Bangayan from liability under Section 5(b), Article III of R.A. 7610.
Statutory Framework and Jurisprudential Development
R.A. 7610 Section 5(b) punishes sexual intercourse or lascivious conduct “with a child exploited in prostitution or subjected to other sexual abuse” when induced by coercion or influence of an adult. By its proviso, intercourse with a child under 12 is prosecuted under the Revised Penal Code (as statutory rape or lascivious conduct). The Implementing Rules define “sexual abuse” to include persuasion or coercion of a child to engage in sexual acts.
People v. Tulagan (2019) clarified that for victims aged 12 to below 18, consent may be material. Consent can be inferred from lack of proof of coercion, profit, or group inducement. Malto v. People (2007) had broadly deemed child consent immaterial under R.A. 7610, but Tulagan restricted that to victims under 12 or demented. Monroy v. People (2019) acquitted on reasonable doubt where 14-year-old’s consensual relationship lacked evidence of coercion.
Supreme Court Majority Ruling
- Constitutional Basis: 1987 Constitution’s protection of children as a vulnerable class, requiring strict proof of coercion or influence.
- Elements of R.A. 7610 Section 5(b) not fully established—the prosecution failed to prove that AAA engaged in intercourse “due to” coercion or influence, profit, or other consideration.
- Consent Material for Offended Party Aged 12 to Below 18: Interpreting R.A. 7610 in harmony with the Revised Penal Code, the Court held that a child between 12 and 18 may give valid sexual consent when there is no evidence of coercion, profit, or undue influence.
- Application to AAA:
AAA and Bangayan maintained a consensual relationship, producing two children before and during proceedings.
AAA did not testify against Bangayan; her Affidavit of Desistance and subsequent conduct evidenced ongoing consent.
Social case study and some medico-legal testimony were excluded for lack of formal offer and verification. - Best Interests of the Child: Recognizing AAA’s welfare and ...continue reading
Case Syllabus (G.R. No. 235610)
Antecedents and Facts
- In January 2012, in Brgy. San Ramos, Nagtipunan, Quirino, Rodan Bangayan allegedly had sexual intercourse with AAA, then a 12-year-old minor, against her will and consent.
- BBB, AAA’s brother, discovered Bangayan naked on top of AAA; Bangayan threatened to kill BBB if he reported the incident.
- AAA was born December 14, 1999; she was 12 years, one month, and 14 days old at the time.
- On April 24, 2012, AAA and her aunt CCC reported the incident to police; Dr. Luis Villar examined AAA the same day.
- Medico-Legal findings: no recent hymenal injury but the vaginal opening approximated an index finger; fundal height and fetal heart rate indicated a 2–3 month pregnancy.
- During examination, AAA allegedly admitted prior consensual intercourse with Bangayan; she later gave birth October 2, 2012 to their first child and on May 4, 2015 to their second.
- On September 4, 2014, AAA (then 14) executed an Affidavit of Desistance, stating she and Bangayan were living as husband and wife with a baby boy.
Procedural History – Regional Trial Court
- Information filed for violation of Section 5(b), Article III of R.A. 7610 (sexual abuse of a child).
- RTC Branch 38, Maddela, Quirino: found Bangayan guilty beyond reasonable doubt; sentenced him to 14 years, 8 months to 20 years reclusion temporal.
- Ordered civil indemnity, moral damages, and exemplary damages of ₱50,000 each, with 6% interest from finality of judgment.
- RTC held that AAA’s consent was immaterial in sexual-abuse cases and treated her affidavit of desistance as inadmissible hearsay.
Procedural History – Court of Appeals
- On June 28, 2017, CA denied Bangayan’s appeal; affirmed conviction but increased each damage award to ₱75,000.
- CA con