G.R. No. 135109 -13; December 18, 2000
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. JOSE PAJO y BAGTONG and IMELDA LIQUIGAN y KASIBAYAN, accused-appellants.

FACTS

The case involves consolidated criminal cases against Jose Pajo, the father of minors AAA and BBB, and his live-in partner, Imelda Liquigan. Pajo was charged with three counts of rape and two counts of acts of lasciviousness committed against his daughters. In one specific incident (Criminal Case No. 97-664), Liquigan was charged as an accomplice for allegedly holding AAA’s legs open to facilitate Pajo’s rape. The Regional Trial Court of Makati convicted Pajo on all charges and sentenced him to death for the three rape cases. It also convicted Liquigan as an accomplice to rape. The case was elevated to the Supreme Court for automatic review due to the imposition of the death penalty.
The prosecution’s evidence, primarily the testimonies of the victims, detailed a pattern of sexual abuse. AAA testified to multiple instances of rape by her father, with the August 1996 incident involving Liquigan’s active participation. BBB testified to acts of lasciviousness. The defense consisted of denial and alibi, claiming the charges were fabricated due to familial discord. Medical findings for AAA indicated a non-virgin state with healed hymenal lacerations, while BBB’s examination showed an intact hymen.

ISSUE

The core issues were: (1) the credibility of the victims’ testimonies; (2) the sufficiency of evidence to prove Pajo’s guilt for rape and acts of lasciviousness beyond reasonable doubt; and (3) the correctness of Liquigan’s conviction as an accomplice to rape.

RULING

The Supreme Court affirmed the convictions but modified the penalties. The Court upheld the trial court’s assessment of the victims’ credibility, noting that testimonies of child-victims of rape are given full weight and credit. The detailed, straightforward, and consistent narrations of AAA and BBB, despite rigorous cross-examination, withstood the test of credibility. The medical evidence for AAA, showing healed lacerations, corroborated her claim of prior sexual intercourse, which aligned with her testimony. For BBB, the Court clarified that the crime of acts of lasciviousness under RA 7610 is consummated by the lascivious conduct itself, regardless of penetration or the victim’s virgin state; thus, her intact hymen did not negate the crime.
Regarding Liquigan, the Court affirmed her conviction as an accomplice. Her act of holding AAA’s legs open during the rape constituted indispensable cooperation, facilitating the crime’s commission without directly forcing the victim. However, the Court modified the penalties. Due to the passage of RA 9346 prohibiting the death penalty, the death sentences imposed on Pajo were reduced to reclusion perpetua without eligibility for parole. The Court also ordered increased civil indemnity, moral damages, and exemplary damages for the victims, recognizing the profound psychological trauma inflicted. All other aspects of the trial court’s decision were affirmed.