People v. Basa, Jr.

 

People v. Basa, Jr.

G.R. No. 237349

February 27, 2019

FACTS:

                RTC and CA convicted Manuel Basa, Jr. of the crime of rape. AAA, a minor, was raped by Basa twice inside the office of “Ka Eddie” INC pastor in INC church in Paranaque City when she checked the taheta or their attendance in participating in their worship. At the first rape, Basa kissed and fingered her. Second rape, he kissed and her and inserted her penis. According to him, he was not yet a member of the INC and still under probation and contented that he was preparing the stage of the church for afternoon program, and was with several other persons preparing for the New Year’s celebration and afternoon prayer.

ISSUE:

                Whether or not Basa should be held liable for Lascivious Conduct

HELD:

                Yes. In Dimakuta v. People, the offender should liable for violation of Sec 5(b) Art. III of RA 7610 if the offended party is a child victim. But if the victim is at least eighteen years old, the offender should be liable under Art. 244-A par. 2 of the RPC, unless the victim is at least 18 years old and she is unable to fully take care of herself or protect herself from abuse, neglect, cruelty, exploitation or discrimination because of a physical or mental disability or condition, in which case, the offender may still be held liable for sexual abuse under RA 7610. RA 7610 is a special law which should clearly prevail over RA 8353, which is a mere general law amending the RPC. Before an accused can be held liable for lascivious conduct under Sec. 5 (b), Art. III of RA 7610, the Court held in Quimvel v. People that the requisites are : 1.) The offender commits any act of lasciviousness or lewdness; 2.) That it be done under any of the following circumstances: a. Through force, threat, or intimidation; b. When the offended party is deprived of reason or otherwise unconscious; c. By means of fraudulent machination or grave abuse of authority; or d. When the offended party is under 12 years of age or is demented, even though none of the circumstances mentioned above be present; 3.) That said act is performed with a child exploited in prostitution or subjected to other sexual abuse; and 4.) That the offended party is a child, whether male or female, below 18 years of age. Basa committed the first act when he dragged AAA in the room to insert his finger into her private part. The prosecution was able to prove the element of intentional touching, either directly or through clothing, of the genitalia of any person, with intent to abuse or gratify sexual desire. The second requisite, Basa grabbed her right arm and forcefully dragged her to the office and threatened to kill her. Under Sec. 3 RA 7610 “children’ refers to persons below eighteen years of age or those over but are unable to fully take care of themselves or protect themselves from abuse, neglect, cruelty, exploitation or discrimination because of a physical or mental disability or condition.” With respect to the second case, he should be liable for rape as all the elements were committed by basa. 1.) A man who shall have carnal knowledge of a woman under any of the ff. circumstances: a. Through force, threat, or intimidation; b. When the offended party is deprived of reason or otherwise unconscious; c. By means of fraudulent machination or grave abuse of authority; and d. When the offended party is under twelve years of age or is demented, even though none of the circumstances mentioned above be present. Indeed, no woman, much less a child, would willingly submit herself to the rigors, the humiliation and the stigma attendant upon the prosecution of rape, if she were not motivated by an earnest desire to put the culprit behind bars. Hence, AAA’ testimony is entitled to full faith and credence. Wherefore, appeal is dismissed and affirmed CA with modification.