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.