G.R. No. 235610 , September 16, 2020
Rodan A. Bangayan, Petitioner, vs. People of the Philippines, Respondent.

FACTS

Rodan Bangayan was charged with rape under the Revised Penal Code in relation to Republic Act (R.A.) No. 7610. The Information alleged that in January 2012, he had sexual intercourse with AAA, a 12-year-old minor, against her will. During trial, AAA, then 14, executed an affidavit of desistance, stating she and Bangayan were cohabiting. A case study by the Social Welfare Office found AAA was abused, her development hampered, and her cohabitation with Bangayan stemmed from a longing for a parental figure, recommending separation for her welfare. The prosecution presented evidence, including AAA’s brother who witnessed the assault and a physician who noted AAA’s pregnancy and prior abuse.
The Regional Trial Court convicted Bangayan under Section 5(b) of R.A. 7610, ruling the sexual abuse of a child was established. It found the age gap (Bangayan was 27) indicated moral ascendancy, making AAA’s consent immaterial. The Court of Appeals affirmed. Bangayan appealed, arguing the prosecution failed to prove the element of coercion, influence, or intimidation required under R.A. 7610, asserting the relationship was consensual.

ISSUE

Whether the prosecution proved beyond reasonable doubt all elements of sexual abuse under Section 5(b), Article III of R.A. No. 7610 , specifically the element of coercion or influence over the child victim.

RULING

The Supreme Court, in its Decision, affirmed the conviction. It held that for a violation of Section 5(b) of R.A. 7610, the law requires the act of sexual intercourse be committed with a child exploited in prostitution or subjected to other sexual abuse. The phrase “other sexual abuse” includes acts of molestation or carnal knowledge under coercive circumstances. Coercion is inherent in sexual intercourse between an adult and a child below 12. For a child aged 12 to 18, coercion is not presumed and must be proven, such as through intimidation, influence, or moral ascendancy.
The Court found coercion present. The 15-year age gap, Bangayan’s role as a helper in AAA’s household giving him a father-figure status as confirmed by the social worker’s case study, and his threat to kill AAA’s brother who witnessed the act constituted the requisite influence and intimidation. AAA’s subsequent desistance and cohabitation, influenced by her traumatic background and search for parental support, did not negate the coercion at the time of the rape. Thus, all elements of the crime were satisfied, and Bangayan’s guilt was proven beyond reasonable doubt.