G.R. No. 235610 - RODAN A. BANGAYAN, VS. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES.DECISION - Supreme Court E-Library

Ruling

WHEREFORE , premises considered, judgment is hereby rendered finding RODAN BANGAYAN y ALCAIDE GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt of violation of Section 5 (b), Article III of Republic Act 7610 and sentences him to an imprisonment of 14 years and 8 months of reclusion temporal as minimum to 20 years of reclusion temporal as maximum . However, his preventive imprisonment shall be fully credited to him in the service of sentence pursuant to Article 29 of the Revised Penal Code, as amended. Accused is ordered to pay [AAA] the amount of 1] PHP 50,000.00 as civil indemnity with interest of 6% per annum from finality of the decision until fully paid. With the category of the accused as a national prisoner, the Clerk of Court is directed to prepare the corresponding mittimus or commitment order for his immediate transfer to the Bureau of Corrections and Penology, Muntinlupa City, pursuant to SC Circular No. 4-92-A dated April 20, 1992. SO ORDERED . [28] (Emphasis in the original) In convicting Bangayan, the RTC found that the prosecution was able to establish the elements of Section 5(b), Article III of R.A. 7610. Bangayan had sexual intercourse with AAA who was born on December 14, 1999 and was 12 years, one (1) month, and 14 days old at the time of the incident. [29] For the RTC, the moral ascendancy or influence of Bangayan over AAA is beyond question due to their age gap of 15 years, and the fact that he is her brother- in-law, he being the brother of the husband of her older sister. [30] The RTC ruled that it will not matter if AAA consented to her defloration because as a rule, the submissiveness or consent of the child under the influence of an adult is not a defense in sexual abuse. [31] The RTC also considered the Affidavit of Desistance AAA executed as hearsay evidence because she did not testify regarding its execution. The RTC added that an Affidavit of Desistance is like an Affidavit of Recantation which the court does not look with favor. [32] On appeal [33] Bangayan impugned the findings of the RTC and argued that the trial court gravely erred in finding that the defense failed to prove by clear and convincing evidence that he is not criminally liable for the act complained of. [34] Bangayan argued that he had proven, by clear and convincing evidence, that he is in a relationship with AAA and that the act complained of was consensual. [35] Bangayan maintained that their persisting relationship should be taken into account and be considered an absolutory cause. [36] He averred that this is similar to Article 266-C of R.A. 8353, or the Anti-Rape Law of 1997, on the effect of pardon where the subsequent valid marriage of the offended party to the offender shall extinguish the criminal action or the penalty imposed. While there is no valid marriage to speak of yet, they were clearly living together as husband and wife as evidenced by the birth of their second child. Bangayan asserted that it would be in the best interest of their growing family to