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

FACTS

Rodan Bangayan was charged with violating Section 5(b) of Republic Act No. 7610 (Special Protection of Children Against Abuse, Exploitation and Discrimination Act) for allegedly having sexual intercourse with AAA, a twelve-year-old minor, in January 2012. The prosecution established that AAA’s brother witnessed the act and that a medical examination revealed physical findings consistent with sexual activity and a pregnancy compatible with the alleged timeline. AAA later gave birth to a child. During the trial, it was revealed that AAA had executed an Affidavit of Desistance, stating she and Bangayan were living together as husband and wife and had a child, and a second child was subsequently born.
The Regional Trial Court convicted Bangayan, finding all elements of the crime present, including AAA’s age and the moral ascendancy Bangayan held as her older brother-in-law. The court gave no credence to the Affidavit of Desistance. The Court of Appeals affirmed the conviction but modified the damages awarded. Bangayan elevated the case to the Supreme Court via a Petition for Review on Certiorari.

ISSUE

Whether the Court of Appeals erred in affirming Bangayan’s conviction for violation of Section 5(b) of R.A. 7610, considering the subsequent consensual cohabitation and relationship between him and the victim.

RULING

The Supreme Court denied the petition and affirmed the conviction. The legal logic is anchored on the nature of the crime under R.A. 7610 as malum prohibitum, where the law is designed to protect children from sexual abuse and exploitation. The offense is complete upon the commission of the sexual act with a child exploited in prostitution or subjected to other sexual abuse. Consent is immaterial and not a defense, as the law presumes a child cannot validly consent to such acts due to their vulnerability and the exploitative context.
The Court rejected the argument that the subsequent cohabitation and birth of children constituted an absolutory cause analogous to pardon in rape cases under the Revised Penal Code. R.A. 7610 contains no such provision. The Affidavit of Desistance does not exonerate the accused, as the crime is a public offense prosecuted by the state. The victim’s forgiveness cannot extinguish criminal liability. The evidence, including the medical findings and witness testimony, sufficiently proved all elements of the crime beyond reasonable doubt. The existence of a relationship does not negate the statutory violation that was consummated at the time of the act.