Title
People vs. Pajo y Bagtong
Case
G.R. No. 135109-13
Decision Date
Dec 18, 2000
Father convicted of raping minor daughter; accomplice held legs during assault. Death penalty imposed; testimonies deemed credible despite reporting delay.
rape
acts of lasciviousness
conviction

Case Summary (G.R. No. 135109-13)

Factual Background as Established at Trial

The RTC found that PAJO had been released from prior imprisonment for theft and then lived with LIQUIGAN as a live-in partner. AAA and her younger sister BBB were the children of PAJO with their mother EEE, who reportedly left when the children were still very young. After PAJO took back AAA and BBB from a relative, the family occupied a room on the second floor of their house, while the ground floor was rented to boarders. At night, PAJO and LIQUIGAN, together with their two-year-old baby, slept together in bed, while AAA and BBB slept on the floor, sometimes separated by a curtain.

Evidence at trial established that PAJO was frequently drunk and used physical intimidation within the household. The RTC narrated that on February 18, 1997, CCC, a relative, spoke with BBB and learned that PAJO had been molesting both BBB and AAA. CCC and other family members brought BBB and AAA to the barangay center, where they reported the matter to the appropriate authorities. Police officers investigated, took written statements from AAA and BBB, and subjected AAA and BBB to medico-legal examinations through the PNP Crime Laboratory and the NBI.

AAA testified that she was raped by PAJO on three occasions: (1) August 18, 1996, (2) September 18, 1996, and (3) January 31, 1997. She identified PAJO as her father and described an environment of fear, threats, and coercion. According to her testimony, when PAJO was drunk he would order her to undress and would proceed to have sexual intercourse with her. She stated that during the August incident, her sister BBB was ordered to stand guard at the door, BBB was ordered to suck PAJO’s penis to arouse him, and PAJO placed himself over AAA while LIQUIGAN held AAA’s legs open. She also testified that the August incident was repeated on September 18, 1996, with AAA then being ordered to go upstairs, undress, and open her legs while PAJO and LIQUIGAN were in bed; she also recounted that PAJO slapped LIQUIGAN when LIQUIGAN failed to spread AAA’s legs. AAA further narrated that in November 1996, she awoke to find PAJO holding her vagina, though the charged rape incidents were those dated August 18, September 18, and January 31, 1997. For the January 31, 1997 rape charge, AAA testified that PAJO woke her by tapping her feet, ordered her to go downstairs to the bathroom, and there removed her underwear and shorts before penetrating her; she stated that PAJO stopped when the dog barked and instructed that she bring water upstairs.

BBB corroborated AAA’s account regarding the August 1996 molestations. She testified that she and AAA were living in the same quarters, that PAJO was drunk, that she was told to stand guard, and that PAJO ordered her to suck his penis while PAJO lay over AAA. BBB confirmed she was twelve years old at the time.

The prosecution presented medico-legal evidence through the testimonies and reports of medical examiners. The RTC discussed that the PNP and NBI medico-legal findings for AAA appeared inconsistent as to the presence of external violence and whether her hymen was intact or showed signs of prior penetration.

RTC Decision and Convictions

After the consolidation of multiple criminal cases by an RTC order dated June 23, 1997, the RTC rendered its decision on July 6, 1998, holding PAJO and LIQUIGAN guilty beyond reasonable doubt. The RTC convicted PAJO of three counts of consummated rape in Criminal Cases Nos. 97-233, 97-664, and 97-665, and of two counts of acts of lasciviousness in Criminal Cases Nos. 97-666 and 97-667. It imposed the death penalty for each rape count and imposed term penalties for the acts of lasciviousness.

As to LIQUIGAN, the RTC convicted her as an accomplice to the rape charged in Criminal Case No. 97-664, imposing a prison term of twelve (12) years and one (1) day to fourteen (14) years and eight (8) months of reclusion temporal as an accomplice in rape.

The RTC also ordered PAJO to indemnify AAA and BBB in P50,000.00 each for each count of rape and acts of lasciviousness, and to pay costs. The Supreme Court later modified aspects of civil liability when affirming the rape convictions subject to automatic review.

Dismissal of Certain Appeals for Failure to Perfect

At the outset, the Court dismissed the appeals in Criminal Cases Nos. 97-666 and 97-667, where PAJO had been convicted of acts of lasciviousness. The Court held that PAJO failed to file notices of appeal. It applied Section 1(b), Rule 122 of the Rules of Criminal Procedure, which requires that an appeal from an RTC judgment in original jurisdiction sentencing the accused to a penalty other than life imprisonment or death be taken by filing a notice of appeal with the court that rendered the judgment and serving a copy on the adverse party.

The Court likewise dismissed LIQUIGAN’s appeal in Criminal Case No. 97-664, because she likewise failed to file a notice of appeal. It noted that the appeals to the Supreme Court when the penalty is life imprisonment or when the lesser penalty is imposed but the offenses arise out of the same occurrence as the more serious offense carrying the death penalty also require filing a notice of appeal and serving a copy on the adverse party. Since PAJO and LIQUIGAN took no appeal with respect to the cases not covered by automatic review, their judgments became final and executory after the lapse of fifteen (15) days.

Accordingly, the Supreme Court limited its discussion to Criminal Cases Nos. 97-233, 97-664, and 97-665.

Issues Raised by PAJO

PAJO assigned as error that the RTC convicted him without proof of guilt beyond reasonable doubt, arguing that the prosecution failed to establish penetration by him in a manner consistent with rape under the law. He specifically challenged the credibility and sufficiency of the complainant’s testimony and the medical findings.

He contended, among others, that AAA was uncertain whether PAJO penetrated her on August 18, 1996, and that he supposedly used his daughters to arouse himself, claiming “triggering” his libido due to alleged alcoholism and impotency. He argued it was unlikely he committed rape in the presence of other family members inside the house. He also claimed delays in filing the complaint showed improper motives.

In addition, PAJO argued that there was an irreconcilable conflict between the medico-legal examinations of AAA prepared by the PNP Crime Laboratory and the NBI, pointing out that one report described no external signs of violence and suggested non-virgin state, while the other noted physical injuries and stated that AAA’s hymen was intact and its orifice small such that complete penetration would preclude without injury. Finally, he asserted that CCC and other relatives improperly suggested revenge and that LIQUIGAN should have been charged as a co-principal rather than only as an accomplice, which he claimed showed a defect in the prosecution’s theory.

The Court’s Assessment of Evidence and Credibility

The Court affirmed the RTC’s finding of guilt. It held that the prosecution established the three rape charges through AAA’s testimony, supported by the corroboration of BBB. It noted that AAA narrated the three rapes with the manner and circumstances of the acts and identified PAJO as the perpetrator.

On PAJO’s insistence that AAA’s account was uncertain and inconsistent, the Court ruled that the denial could not prevail over the categorical testimony of AAA and BBB. It found no showing that the complainants were motivated to falsely implicate PAJO in such a heinous crime, and it treated the absence of convincing evidence of improper motive as supporting the conclusion that their testimonies were worthy of full faith and credit.

The Court further reiterated that in rape cases, the trial judge’s opportunity to observe the demeanor and competence of the child witness carries great weight. It held that determinations on the competence and credibility of a child to testify primarily rest with the trial judge who sees the witness, notices the manner, and assesses the child’s understanding of the oath. It found no basis to disturb the trial court’s evaluation of credibility.

The Court also rejected PAJO’s attempt to characterize the acts as mere sexual gratification without coercion. It stated that “lust is no respecter of time or place.” It further condemned the perverse acts of a father raping his daughters and found PAJO’s defense that he merely used them to arouse himself in order to satisfy LIQUIGAN’s passion to be an implausible justification that did not negate criminal liability.

Treatment of the Alleged Delay, Motive, and Charging of LIQUIGAN

The Court dismissed PAJO’s theory that AAA and BBB filed the cases due to revenge, noting that PAJO’s account of motives based on scolding AAA and BBB for stealing P2,000.00 from a teacher, alleged interest of relatives in possessing the house, and alleged envy concerning a commissioned book about “Destiny Philippines 2000” was uncorroborated and highly unbelievable.

It applied the established rule that no member of a rape victim’s family would dare encourage the victim to publicly expose the family’s dishonor unless the crime had indeed been committed. It considered the relationship between CCC and PAJO and found it unlikely that AAA or CCC would subject AAA to the humiliation of a rape trial if the charges were not true.

On PAJO’s insistence that LIQUIGAN should have been charged as a co-principal instead of an accomplice, the Court held that this contention did not affect PAJO’s culpability. It emphasized that in criminal prosecutions, the prosecution determines what charges to file and how the elements of legal and factual guilt are applied in the information, and that it is the function of the fiscal to determine the degree of complicity to charge.

On the argument regarding the complainant’s delay in reporting, the Court ruled that the failure to immediately report to family members or to police did no

...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