Assuming proper matter, intention and form were used, of course the conferral of Baptism and Confirmation were valid, even if she intended to stay in sin. Here is a selection from Catholic Encyclopedia that explains this:

(b) It is certain and admitted by all, that if Baptism be received by an adult who is in the state of mortal sin, he can afterwards receive the graces of the sacrament, viz. when the obstacle is removed by contrition or by the sacrament of Penance. On the one hand the sacraments always produce grace unless there be an obstacle; on the other hand those graces are necessary, and yet the sacrament cannot be repeated. St. Thomas (III:69:10) and theologians find a special reason for the conferring of the effects of Baptism (when the "fiction" has been removed) in the permanent character which is impressed by the sacrament validly administered. Reasoning from analogy they hold the same with regard to Confirmation and Holy Orders, noting however that the graces to be received are not so necessary as those conferred by Baptism.

--------------------------------------------------
Her sins are an obstacle to receiving the graces of the sacraments but they in no way impede the valid reception of these. Not to mention since this horrible priest told them such lies and may not have said anything to them at all it is possible also that she is bona fide. As such it would be sacrilegious for the woman to be baptized and confirmed again.