G.R. No. 242882 - People vs. Jagdon Jr.

Case Digest (G.R. No. 242882)
Advanced

Facts:

Overview of the appeal

The accused-appellant Diosdado Jagdon, Jr. appealed from the Decision dated June 29, 2018 of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. CR-HC No. 02327.
The CA affirmed the Joint Decision dated December 18, 2012 of the Regional Trial Court (RTC) in Criminal Case Nos. B-01591 and B-01592.
The RTC found the accused-appellant guilty beyond reasonable doubt of Rape and Acts of Lasciviousness involving two minor victims, AAA and BBB.
The CA sentenced the accused-appellant to reclusion perpetua for Rape.
The CA modified the penalty for Acts of Lasciviousness to an indeterminate sentence of:

twelve (12) years and one (1) day of reclusion temporal in its minimum period, as minimum; and
fifteen (15) years, six (6) months and twenty-one (21) days of reclusion temporal in its medium period, as maximum.

Criminal charges filed in the RTC

Two separate Informations were filed.
Criminal Case No. B-01591 (Rape)

The Information alleged that in the third week of January 2003 at noon, and within the RTC’s jurisdiction, the accused-appellant, by means of force and intimidation and with lewd design, had carnal knowledge with AAA, a nine (9)-year-old minor, against her will and consent.

Criminal Case No. B-01592 (Acts of Lasciviousness)

The Information alleged that in the third week of January 2003 in the evening, and within the RTC’s jurisdiction, the accused-appellant, with lewd design, licked the genitalia of BBB, a six (6)-year-old girl, against her will and consent.

Plea and trial

Upon arraignment, the accused-appellant pleaded not guilty to both charges.
A joint trial ensued.

Prosecution evidence (testimony and circumstances)

Relationship and access

The accused-appellant was the live-in partner of the aunt of AAA’s father.
The accused-appellant and the victims were neighbors.

Alleged rape incident involving AAA (pigpen; January 2003)

AAA was about nine (9) years old and was near her home when the accused-appellant suddenly brought her into a pigpen.
Inside the pigpen, the accused-appellant started licking AAA’s vagina.
The accused-appellant proceeded to insert his penis into AAA’s vagina.
AAA struggled and experienced pain during penetration.
After satisfying his “bestial desires,” the accused-appellant gave AAA cash and told her not to tell anyone.

Alleged acts witnessed by BBB (pigpen; January 2003)

BBB, AAA’s younger sister, was on the road across the pigpen.
BBB saw the accused-appellant inside the pigpen licking AAA’s genitals while AAA stood.
BBB later saw the accused-appellant exit the pigpen.
BBB left and joined children who were playing nearby.

Alleged acts involving BBB (house; January 2003)

Around the same week, when BBB was playing alone outside the house, the accused-appellant called and instructed her to go inside.
With the front door open, the accused-appellant made BBB lie on a bed.
The accused-appellant removed BBB’s skirt and underwear.
The accused-appellant licked BBB’s vagina and inserted his finger into it.
After the acts, the accused-appellant gave BBB P3.00 and told her not to tell her mother.

Disclosure to mother and medical examination (February 2003)

Sometime in February 2003, after an argument between AAA and BBB, BBB told their mother, CCC, that AAA had been having sex with the accused-appellant.
AAA was brought to a local government hospital for medical examination.
The provisional medical certificate contained indications suggestive of sexual abuse.
The findings were confirmed by Dr. Naomi Poca of Vicente Sotto Memorial Medical Center.

Alleged pattern of prior assaults

AAA disclosed that the pigpen incident was not isolated.
The accused-appellant allegedly sexually ravished her for some time.
The incidents allegedly usually occurred inside the pigpen, at the house, at the accused-appellant’s house, or at a nearby banana grove.
After each incident, the accused-appellant allegedly gave her money.

Defense evidence (denial and alibi; motives)

Partial admission

The accused-appellant admitted that AAA was nine (9) years old at the time of the rape incident.
The accused-appellant admitted that BBB was younger than AAA.

Denial of authorship

The accused-appellant denied authorship of the crimes against the two minor victims.

Alibi

The accused-appellant claimed that when the rape incident happened, he was at his workplace in a different municipality.
The place where the incident took place and the workplace were in adjacent municipalities.
Travel allegedly required more than an hour.
The accused-appellant argued that this made his presence at the incident site unlikely.

Alleged ill motive and fabrication

The accused-appellant attributed ill motive to AAA and BBB’s parents.
He claimed the charges were concocted due to his estranged relationship with AAA and political issues between him and the victims’ family.

RTC judgment and penalties/damages

The RTC convicted the accused-appellant of:

Rape and sentenced him to reclusion perpetua.
Acts of Lasciviousness, and sentenced him to 4 years, 2 months and 1 day to 6 years (maximum) of prision correccional.

Awards in the RTC (as stated in the dispositive portio...(Subscriber-Only)

Issues:

Credibility and factual findings

Whether the CA erred in affirming the trial court’s factual findings based on witness credibility.

Criminal Case No. B-01591: Statutory rape (AAA)

Whether the prosecution proved the elements of rape under Article 266-A of the RPC as amended by RA 8353, specifically statutory rape under Article 266-A (1) (d).
Whether AAA’s age was sufficiently proven despite the prosecution’s failure to present a birth certificate or other authentic document.
Whether the prosecution proved carnal knowledge despite the defense’s arguments regarding the circumstances of the incident and the manner of victim behavior afterward.

Criminal Case No. B-01592: Acts of lasciviousness (BBB)

Whether the prosecution proved the elements of Acts of Lasciviousness under Article 336 of the RPC in relation to Section 5 (b) of RA 7610.
Whether the accused-appellant could be convicted for a crime greater than Acts of Lasciviousness when the information charged only Acts of Lasciviousness.
Whether the variance regarding the number of times the lascivious acts were allegedly committed affected BBB’s credibility or warranted acquittal.
Whether denial, alib...(Subscriber-Only)

Ruling:

(Subscriber-Only)

Unlock Full Case Digest

Supreme Court E-Library

Case Digest (G.R. No. 242882)
Concise Detailed

Facts:

Issues:

Ruling:

Case Digest (G.R. No. 242882)
Advanced

Facts:

Issues:

Ruling:

Case Digest (G.R. No. 242882) Concise Detailed

Facts:

Issues:

Ruling:

Case Digest (G.R. No. 242882) Advanced

Facts:

Issues:

Ruling:

Case Digest (G.R. No. 242882)
Concise Detailed

Case Digest (G.R. No. 242882)
Advanced