A.M. No. P-91-549 - Sebastian vs. Valino

Accused-appellant Jaime Cadag Jimenez was charged with two counts of lascivious conduct committed against his daughter, Joanna Marie Jimenez y San Pedro.
The criminal charges arose from two separate criminal cases:

Crim. Case No. 97-1551-MK, involving an incident on or about February 12, 1997, where the accused was alleged to have committed lascivious conduct by inserting his finger into Joanna’s vagina.
Crim. Case No. 97-1577-MK, involving an incident in the second week of November 1996 when Joanna, then 11 years old, was allegedly molested in the sala of their house.

From August to October 1996, while the family slept in a one-bedroom house with all members sharing the sala, the accused allegedly carried his daughter from the sleeping area to the bedroom.

In the bedroom, he reportedly kissed her, fondled her breasts, removed her shorts and panties, and inserted his penis into her vagina.
It is noted that on the sixth occurrence, Joanna mentioned she had begun menstruating on November 5, 1996.

In the second week of November 1996, while Joanna was asleep in the sala, the accused allegedly inserted his finger into her vagina without her consent while other family members were sleeping nearby.
Shortly after Joanna’s 12th birthday on January 25, 1997, another alleged molestation occurred on February 12, 1997, wherein the accused repeated the act of inserting his finger into her vagina.

Joanna Marie Jimenez testified regarding the incidents at length, with details that differed in some minor aspects between her courtroom testimony and her sworn statement.
Additional testimonies were given by SPO1 Lucymay Robles and Rowena Villegas.

Joanna was examined by Dr. Dennis Bellin who issued a medico-legal certificate noting healed lacerations on the hymen consistent with sexual abuse and confirming her non-virgin state despite no obvious external signs of violence.

Joanna is the eldest of five children in a family that lived in a one-bedroom house in Parang, Marikina.
The living arrangement resulted in the entire family sleeping in the same sala, with arrangements that placed Joanna furthest from her parents.

Accused-appellant pleaded not guilty and denied the allegations, asserting that:

He was never left alone with his daughter since he left early for work and returned at varying times during the day.
The family’s sleeping arrangements, with his wife Nimfa and their other children present in the sala, made it impossible for him to have committed the alleged acts.

His wife, Nimfa, even testified in his favor, stating that she never left the house without the children on February 12, 1997.
The accused-appellant argued that there were material inconsistencies and improbabilities in Joanna’s testimony, especially regarding details of the location of the abuse and the timeline of events.

In Crim. Case No. 97-1551-MK, the trial court found Jimenez guilty beyond reasonable doubt of lascivious conduct and sentenced him to reclusion perpetua with a fine of ₱20,000.00 administered by the DSWD for the rehabilitation of Joanna, plus costs.
In Crim. Case No. 97-1577-MK, the accused was similarly found guilty and sentenced to reclusion perpetua with identical fines and accessory penalties, though issues regarding the age of the victim and appropriate penalty were later raised.
The prosecuting evidence, including the victim’s detailed testimonies and the medico-legal certificate, played a crucial role in the trial court’s findings, despite the defense’s contention of inconsistencies and delay in reporting.

Whether the minor inconsistencies between the victim’s sworn statement and her in-court testimony were sufficient to undermine her overall credibility.
Whether the delay in reporting the abuse affected the reliability of Joanna’s testimony.

Whether the trial court erred in determining the penalty for the counts charged, particularly:

The imposition of reclusion perpetua in both criminal cases despite differences in the victim’s age and circumstances.
The application of an aggravating circumstance (relationship) to elevate the penalty even though it was not specifically pleaded in the informations.

Whether the relationship of the accused to the victim, as an ascendant and parent, qualifies only as an ordinary generic aggravating circumstance rather than a qualifying circumstance, and how this should affect the sentencing range.
The proper application of the provisions of R.A. No. 7610 in terms of penalty, particularly regarding the distinction between reclusion temporal and reclusion perpetua.