Title
People vs. Jagdon Jr.
Case
G.R. No. 242882
Decision Date
Sep 9, 2020
Accused-appellant convicted of statutory rape and acts of lasciviousness against minors, affirmed by SC; penalties and damages modified.
rape
acts of lasciviousness
conviction
A

Case Summary (G.R. No. 242882)

Factual Background and Charges

The two informations arose from allegations that, in the third week of January 2003, accused-appellant sexually abused two children. In Criminal Case No. B-01591, the prosecution charged accused-appellant with Rape committed through force and intimidation and with lewd design, alleging that the victim AAA was a nine-year-old minor at the time of the incident and that accused-appellant had carnal knowledge with her against her will and consent. In Criminal Case No. B-01592, the prosecution charged Acts of Lasciviousness, alleging that accused-appellant, with lewd design, licked the genitalia of BBB, a six-year-old girl, against her will and consent.

On arraignment, accused-appellant entered pleas of not guilty to both charges, and the cases proceeded to a joint trial.

Prosecution’s Version

The prosecution presented a narrative that accused-appellant was the live-in partner of the aunt of AAA’s father, and that the parties were neighbors. The prosecution testified that sometime in the later part of January 2003, AAA, then nine years old, was near her home when accused-appellant suddenly brought her into a pigpen. Inside the pigpen, accused-appellant allegedly licked AAA’s vagina and then inserted his penis into her vagina multiple times. AAA testified that she struggled and experienced pain during the penetration. Afterward, accused-appellant allegedly gave her cash and told her not to tell anyone.

The prosecution further alleged that the assault was not fully secret. BBB, AAA’s younger sister, was said to have witnessed a portion of the incident. BBB testified that she saw accused-appellant sitting inside the pigpen licking AAA’s genitals while AAA stood outside or near him, and then saw accused-appellant exit the pigpen. Afterward, BBB left and joined a group of children who were playing nearby.

Sometime during the same week, when BBB was six years old, accused-appellant allegedly called her and ordered her inside their house. With the front door open, accused-appellant allegedly made BBB lie on a bed, removed her skirt and underwear, licked her vagina, and inserted his finger into her vagina. Accused-appellant then allegedly gave BBB P3.00 and warned her not to tell her mother.

In February 2003, following an argument between AAA and BBB, BBB allegedly told their mother, CCC, that AAA had been having sex with accused-appellant. AAA was then brought to a local government hospital for examination, and a provisional medical certificate noted indications suggestive of sexual abuse. The prosecution later relied on the testimony of Dr. Naomi Poca of Vicente Sotto Memorial Medical Center, who confirmed the medical findings.

AAA also testified that the pigpen incident was not isolated, stating that accused-appellant sexually ravished her over time in the pigpen, in houses, and even in a nearby banana grove, and that after each incident accused-appellant usually gave her money.

Defense’s Version

Accused-appellant admitted that AAA was nine years old at the time of the alleged rape incident and that BBB was younger than AAA. However, he denied authorship of the offenses. He claimed alibi: during the rape incident, he was supposedly at his workplace in a different locality, and he argued that travel between the place of his alleged workplace and the place where the incident occurred took more than an hour both ways, which he contended made his presence impossible at the time of commission.

Accused-appellant also attempted to defeat the prosecution by imputing ill motive to AAA’s and BBB’s parents. He alleged that the charges were concocted due to estrangement arising from political issues and his purported bad relationship with AAA, whom he claimed to have been prone to speaking bad words.

RTC Proceedings and Conviction

After due proceedings, the RTC convicted accused-appellant beyond reasonable doubt for both crimes. It imposed reclusion perpetua for rape under Criminal Case No. B-01591, and ordered payment of P50,000.00 as court indemnity and P50,000.00 as moral damages to AAA. For Criminal Case No. B-01592, for Acts of Lasciviousness in relation to RA 7610, the RTC sentenced accused-appellant to four (4) years, two (2) months and one (1) day to six (6) years (maximum period of prision correccional) and ordered an additional transfer directive to the national penitentiary custody pursuant to court administrative circulars.

Accused-appellant appealed to the CA, maintaining his innocence.

CA Proceedings and Modification

The CA affirmed the RTC’s convictions, but modified the penalty for Acts of Lasciviousness. For rape, the CA maintained the penalty of reclusion perpetua and ordered increased civil awards to AAA, including civil indemnity, moral damages, and exemplary damages, each in the amount of Php 75,000.00. For Acts of Lasciviousness, the CA fixed the penalty at twelve (12) years and one (1) day of reclusion temporal in its minimum period, as minimum, to fifteen (15) years, six (6) months and twenty-one (21) days of reclusion temporal in its medium period, as maximum, and ordered awards to BBB consisting of civil indemnity, moral damages, and exemplary damages of Php 20,000.00 and Php 15,000.00 respectively, plus fine.

The CA sustained the prosecution’s theory that AAA’s minority and testimony proved the elements of statutory rape under the applicable provisions, and it held that accused-appellant’s acts of licking BBB’s genitalia and inserting his finger into her vagina established the elements of Acts of Lasciviousness, showing intent to abuse, degrade, and harass the child for sexual gratification.

Issues Raised on Appeal

The sole issue presented for resolution was whether the CA erred in affirming accused-appellant’s conviction for Rape and Acts of Lasciviousness.

Supreme Court’s Ruling on Criminal Case No. B-01591: Statutory Rape

The Supreme Court held that the appeal lacked merit, while still making necessary modifications on nomenclature and damages. It emphasized that assessing witness credibility is primarily the domain of the trial court, and that appellate courts generally do not disturb factual findings when these are affirmed by the CA, especially where the trial court had the unique opportunity to observe the witnesses.

On the merits of Criminal Case No. B-01591, the Supreme Court characterized the charge as statutory rape under Article 266-A (1) (d) of the RPC, as amended by RA 8353, because the information alleged that AAA was only nine (9) years old at the time of the incident. The Court reiterated that statutory rape is committed by sexual intercourse with a woman below twelve years of age regardless of consent, and that the elements of statutory rape are: (1) the offended party is under twelve years of age; and (2) the accused had carnal knowledge of the victim.

Regarding age, the Court noted that the best evidence of minority is usually the birth certificate, but it cited jurisprudence admitting exceptions where the accused expressly and clearly admits the victim’s age. Although the prosecution did not present AAA’s birth certificate, accused-appellant himself expressly admitted during testimony that AAA was nine years old at the time of the rape incident. The Court held that this admission, together with AAA’s testimony, sufficiently proved that AAA was under twelve.

Regarding carnal knowledge, the Court found that AAA’s testimony was categorical and straightforward. The Court relied on AAA’s account that accused-appellant inserted his penis into her vagina and licked her vagina. It also relied on the medical evidence: the provisional medical certificate stated that the result was suggestive of sexual abuse, and this was confirmed by Dr. Poca.

Rejection of Accused-Appellant’s Attempts to Undermine Credibility

The Supreme Court addressed accused-appellant’s arguments that the alleged incident happened in a place allegedly open to neighbors and that AAA’s subsequent behavior supposedly contradicted the claim of ravishment. The Court held that rape is not prevented by the mere presence of people, affirming that lust is not constrained by time or place. The Court also ruled that immediate normal behavior after a rape is not a reliable indicator of falsity because victims may react unpredictably under emotional stress. It further held that any inconsistency between AAA’s account and BBB’s limited observation was not fatal because BBB did not testify to seeing the entire occurrence and did not claim to see the penetration itself.

The Supreme Court also treated BBB’s testimony and the medical findings as supportive of the prosecution’s version in light of the children’s age and the nature of the acts alleged.

Finally, the Court considered accused-appellant’s defenses of denial, alibi, and ill motive as weak. It held that denial is intrinsically weak without strong evidence of non-culpability, and that alibi requires proof of physical impossibility and of absence from the locus delicti. It found that accused-appellant failed to establish physical impossibility, especially since the Court noted that travel between the locations could take only a little more than an hour. As to ill motive, the Court held that accused-appellant presented no clear and convincing proof that the children and their family were motivated by hatred or revenge.

Limitation of Liability for the Statutory Rape Charge

While the Supreme Court accepted that AAA testified to being ravished more than once, it held that accused-appellant could only be convicted of one count of statutory rape because the information in Criminal Case No. B-01591 charged only one count of rape.

Supreme Court’s Ruling on Criminal Case No. B-01592: Acts of Lasciviousness

For the second charge, the Supreme Court reiterated that when acts of lasciviousness are committed against a child under twelve years of age, the designation of the crime under Article 336 in relation to Section 5 (b) of RA 7610 applies, and that the penalty is

...continue reading

Analyze Cases Smarter, Faster
Jur helps you analyze cases smarter to comprehend faster, building context before diving into full texts. AI-powered analysis, always verify critical details.

About Privacy Terms