G.R. No. 143755-58 - People vs. Pajarillo

The complainant is Anne Rachel Pajarillo, a sixteen-year-old abandoned child taken in by Eduardo Pajarillo and his wife, Resurreccion Pajarillo; although not legally adopted, she was treated as their daughter and used the Pajarillo surname.
The household was a two-storey residence in Davao City where Eduardo and Resurreccion lived with their nine sons and some grandchildren.
Family dynamics indicated that while some children (e.g., Eduardo Pajarillo Jr. and Ruel) shared the residence, others resided elsewhere or visited occasionally.

The first incident in 1993 when she was in Grade 3, involving oral testimony that her “stepfather” (whom she identified as Eduardo Pajarillo) raped her by removing her undergarments, holding her hands, spreading her legs, and inserting his penis.
Subsequent incidents on November 5, 1995, and November 10, 1995, where she testified that Eduardo raped her.
A later occurrence on November 26, 1995, where she initially described a similar rape but later under re-direct examination minimized the incident to having her breasts mashed, being embraced, and her vagina touched.

On November 27, 1995, after her class, Anne Rachel disclosed her ordeal to her teacher, Mrs. Rose Baja, choosing not to return home.
Accompanied by Mrs. Baja to the CYRS, Anne Rachel underwent a medical examination by Dr. Danilo P. Ledesma, who found old and healed wounds on her hymen; the examination noted that any penetration was superficial with only an incomplete laceration of the hymenal tissue.

On August 3, 1996, Anne Rachel formally filed four criminal complaints against Eduardo Pajarillo corresponding to the incidents in 1993, November 5, November 10, and November 26, 1995.
The criminal complaints charged Eduardo with rape under Article 335, as amended, for each separate occurrence, asserting that the acts were committed by means of force and intimidation against a minor under 18 years of age.

Eduardo Pajarillo, the accused, raised a defense of both alibi and denial. His version was supported by testimonies from various witnesses, including neighbors (William Abuda and Archel Aniega), a granddaughter (Junnebelyn Pajarillo), and his wife, Resurreccion Pajarillo.
The defense witnesses stated that at the times of the alleged incidents the household was bustling with family members and visitors, especially during television broadcasts of basketball games, thereby casting doubt on the possibility of the alleged secretive acts.
Moreover, character testimonies portrayed Anne Rachel as a “naughty” or hard-headed girl who often left the house on her own, further complicating the narrative of continuous abuse.

Anne Rachel’s testimony was pivotal yet inconsistent—she initially identified her rapist by his smell in the darkness, which later raised questions about the reliability of such sensory identification.
Her narrative also vacillated between detailed descriptions (e.g., in Grade 3) and minimal accounts in later incidents, with notable discrepancies in the November 26, 1995, incident when she shifted from alleging rape to describing less severe acts of lasciviousness.
The complainant even at one point broadened her allegations to include other family members (Rolito and Randy Pajarillo), although these additional charges were dismissed due to insufficient evidence.

The Regional Trial Court, Branch 15 of Davao City, originally found Eduardo Pajarillo guilty on four separate counts—imposing reclusion perpetua on one case and the death penalty on the remaining three, along with orders for indemnification to the victim.
On automatic review in en banc proceedings, the appellate court noted that while the evidence for the 1993, November 5, and November 10 incidents was insufficient to establish rape beyond reasonable doubt, the November 26 incident provided enough grounds to convict of acts of lasciviousness.
Ultimately, Eduardo Pajarillo was acquitted of the rape charges but was convicted on one count for the crime of acts of lasciviousness and sentenced accordingly.

Whether Anne Rachel’s testimony—marked by inconsistencies in describing the occurrences—fulfilled the high standard of moral certainty required in rape cases.
The impact of her vague recollections and later recantations on establishing the requisite elements of rape.

Whether the identification of Eduardo Pajarillo based largely on the sense of smell in a darkened environment was sufficiently reliable to overcome reasonable doubt.
The implications of the presence of multiple persons at the residence during the alleged incidents leading to conflicting identifications.

Whether the evidence presented by the prosecution adequately established the elements of rape in the incidents of 1993, November 5, and November 10, 1995.
Determining if the evidence, albeit inadequate for rape, nonetheless supported a conviction for the lesser offense of acts of lasciviousness in the November 26, 1995 incident.

Whether imposing an indeterminate sentence ranging from arresto mayor to prision correccional was consistent with the principles of proportionality and the proven elements of the offense.

Whether, given the discrepancies in testimony and insufficient evidence for rape, it was proper to convict Eduardo Pajarillo for acts of lasciviousness as a lesser-included offense.