G.R. No. 242882, September 09, 2020
People of the Philippines, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Diosdado Jagdon, Jr., Accused-Appellant.

FACTS

Accused-appellant Diosdado Jagdon, Jr. was charged with Rape against AAA, a nine-year-old, and Acts of Lasciviousness against BBB, her six-year-old sister, both occurring in January 2003. The prosecution alleged that Jagdon, a neighbor and live-in partner of the victims’ grand-aunt, brought AAA into a pigpen, licked her vagina, and then had carnal knowledge of her. This act was witnessed by BBB from a distance. In a separate incident within the same week, Jagdon called BBB into a house, made her lie on a bed, removed her clothing, and licked her vagina while inserting his finger. After each incident, he gave the victims money and instructed them not to tell anyone.
The defense interposed denial and alibi. Jagdon claimed he was at his workplace in a different, albeit adjacent, municipality at the time of the noon rape incident. He also alleged that the charges were fabricated due to political differences and a strained relationship with the victims’ family.

ISSUE

The core issue is whether the prosecution proved the guilt of the accused-appellant for the crimes of Rape and Acts of Lasciviousness beyond reasonable doubt.

RULING

The Supreme Court affirmed the conviction. The Court found the testimonies of the child victims, AAA and BBB, to be credible, consistent, and candid, satisfying the stringent standard for proving rape. The victims’ detailed accounts of the sexual assaults, including the specific locations and the accused’s acts, were delivered in a straightforward manner. The medical findings of healed lacerations on AAA corroborated her claim of penetration. The defense of alibi was correctly rejected as it was not physically impossible for Jagdon to be at the crime scene, given that his workplace was merely an hour away by available transportation. The alleged ill motive of the family was deemed insufficient to overturn the positive and credible identification by the victims.
Regarding the penalty for Acts of Lasciviousness under Article 336 of the Revised Penal Code in relation to Republic Act No. 7610, the Court modified the CA’s ruling. Applying the Indeterminate Sentence Law, the proper penalty is an indeterminate sentence of twelve (12) years and one (1) day of reclusion temporal in its minimum period, as minimum, to seventeen (17) years and four (4) months of reclusion temporal in its medium period, as maximum. The awards of civil indemnity, moral damages, and exemplary damages for both crimes were sustained with interest.