EN BANC
PEOPLE OF THE
PHILIPPINES,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
G.R.
No.
131516
March 5, 2003
-versus-
RONNIE RULLEPA Y
GUINTO,
Accused-Appellant.
D E C I S I
O N
CARPIO-MORALES,
J.:chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary
On complaint of Cyra May
Francisco Buenafe, accused-appellant Ronnie Rullepa y Guinto was
charged
with Rape before the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Quezon City
allegedly
committed as follows:
That on or about the
17th day of November, 1995, in Quezon City, Philippines, the said
accused,
by means of force and intimidation, to wit: by then and there
willfully,
unlawfully and feloniously removing her panty, kissing her lips and
vagina
and thereafter rubbing his penis and inserting the same to the inner
portion
of the vagina of the undersigned complainant, 3 years of age, a minor,
against her will and without her consent.[1]
Arraigned on January
15, 1996, accused-appellant pleaded not guilty.[2]
From the testimonies
of its witnesses, namely Cyra May,[3]
her mother Gloria Francisco Buenafe, Dr. Cristina V. Preyra, and SPO4
Catherine
Borda, the prosecution established the following facts:
On November 20, 1995,
as Gloria was about to set the table for dinner at her house in Quezon
City, Cyra May, then only three and a half years old, told her, "Mama,
si kuya Ronnie lagay niya titi niya at sinaksak sa puwit at sa bibig
ko."
"Kuya Ronnie" is accused-appellant
Ronnie Rullepa, the Buenafes' house boy, who was sometimes left with
Cyra
May at home.cralaw:red
Gloria asked Cyra May
how many times accused-appellant did those things to her, to which she
answered many times. Pursuing, Gloria asked Cyra May what else he
did to her, and Cyra May indicated the room where accused-appellant
slept
and pointed at his pillow.cralaw:red
As on the night of November
20, 1995 accused-appellant was out with Gloria's husband Col. Buenafe,[4]
she waited until their arrival at past 11:00 p.m. Gloria then
sent
accused-appellant out on an errand and informed her husband about their
daughter's plaint. Buenafe thereupon talked to Cyra May who
repeated
what she had earlier told her mother Gloria.cralaw:red
When accused-appellant
returned, Buenafe and Gloria verified from him whether what Cyra May
had
told them was true. Ronnie readily admitted doing those things
but
only once, at 4:00 p.m. of November 17, 1995 or three days
earlier.
Unable to contain her anger, Gloria slapped accused-appellant several
times.cralaw:red
Since it was already
midnight, the spouses waited until the following morning to bring
accused-appellant
to Camp Karingal where he admitted the imputations against him, on
account
of which he was detained. Gloria's sworn statement[5]
was then taken.[6]
Recalling what accused-appellant
did to her, Cyra May declared at the witness stand: "Sinaksak nya ang
titi
sa pepe ko, sa puwit ko, at sa bunganga," thus causing her pain and
drawing
her to cry. She added that accused-appellant did these to her
twice
in his bedroom.cralaw:red
Dr. Ma. Cristina V.
Preyra, the Medico-Legal Officer and Chief of the Biological Science
Branch
of the Philippine National Police Crime Laboratory who examined Crya
May,
came up with her report dated November 21, 1995,[7]
containing the following findings and conclusions:
FINDINGS:
GENERAL AND EXTRA GENITAL:chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Fairly developed, fairly
nourished and coherent female child subject. Breasts are
undeveloped.
Abdomen is flat and soft.cralaw:red
GENITAL:
There is absence of
pubic hair. Labia majora are full, convex and coaptated with
congested
and abraded labia minora presenting in between. On separating the
same is disclosed an abraded posterior fourchette and an elastic,
fleshy
type intact hymen. External vaginal orifice does not admit the
tip
of the examining index finger.cralaw:red
x x x
CONCLUSION:
Subject is in virgin
state physically.cralaw:red
There are no external
signs of recent application of any form of trauma at the time of
examination.
(Emphasis supplied)
By Dr. Preyra's explanation,
the abrasions on the labia minora could have been caused by friction
with
an object, perhaps an erect penis. She doubted if riding on a
bicycle
had caused the injuries.[8]
The defense's sole witness
was accused-appellant, who was 28 and single at the time he took the
witness
stand on June 9, 1997. He denied having anything to do with the
abrasions
found in Cyra May's genitalia, and claimed that prior to the alleged
incident,
he used to be ordered to buy medicine for Cyra May who had difficulty
urinating.
He further alleged that after he refused to answer Gloria's queries if
her husband Buenafe, whom he usually accompanied whenever he went out
of
the house, was womanizing, Gloria would always find fault in him.
He suggested that Gloria was behind the filing of the complaint.
Thus:
q-
According to them you caused the abrasions found in her genital?
a-
That is not true, sir.cralaw:red
q-
If that is not true, what is the truth?
a-
As I have mentioned earlier that before I started working with the
family
I was sent to Crame to buy medicine for the daughter because she had
difficulty
in urinating.cralaw:red
q-
Did you know why the child has difficulty in urinating?
a-
No, I do not know, sir.cralaw:red
q-
And how about the present complaint filed against you, the complaint
filed
by the mother of the victim?
a-
I did not do it, sir.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
q-
What is the truth, what can you say about this present complaint filed
against you?
a-
As I said Mrs. Buenafe got mad at me because after I explained to her
that
I was going with her gusband (sic) to the children of the husband with
a former marriage.[9]
Finding for the prosecution,
Branch 96 of the Quezon City RTC rendered judgment, the dispositive
portion
of which reads:
WHEREFORE, judgment
is hereby rendered finding accused RONNIE RULLEPA y GUINTO guilty
beyond
reasonable doubt of rape, and he is accordingly sentenced to death.cralaw:red
The accused is ordered
to pay CYRA MAE BUENAFE the amount of P40,000.00 as civil indemnity.cralaw:red
Costs to be paid by
the accused.[10]
(Italics in the original)
Hence, this automatic
review, accused-appellant assigning the following errors to the trial
court:
I
THE COURT A QUO
ERRED
IN CONSIDERING AS ADMISSIBLE IN EVIDENCE THE ACCUSED-APPELLANT'S
ADMISSION.
II
THE COURT A QUO
ERRED
ON (sic) RULING THAT THE ACCUSED-APPELLANT'S SILENCE DURING TRIAL
AMOUNTED
TO AN IMPLIED ADMISSION OF GUILT.
III
THE COURT A QUO
ERRED
IN FINDING THAT THE GUILT OF THE ACCUSED-APPELLANT FOR THE CRIME
CHARGED
HAS BEEN PROVEN BEYOND REASONABLE DOUBT.
IV
THE COURT A QUO
GRAVELY
ERRED IN IMPOSING THE SUPREME PENALTY OF DEATH UPON THE
ACCUSED-APPELLANT.[11]
(Emphasis supplied)
Accused-appellant assails
the crediting by the trial court, as the following portion of its
decision
shows, of his admission to Gloria of having sexually assaulted Cyra May:
In addition, the mother
asserted that Rullepa had admitted Cyra Ma[y]'s complaint during the
confrontation
in the house. Indeed, according to the mother, the admission was
even expressly qualified by Rullepa's insistence that he had committed
the sexual assault only once, specifying the time thereof as 4:00 pm of
November 17, 1995. That qualification proved that the admission
was
voluntary and true. An uncoerced and truthful admission like this
should be absolutely admissible and competent.cralaw:red
x x x
Remarkably, the admission
was not denied by the accused during trial despite his freedom to deny
it if untrue. Hence, the admission became conclusive upon him.[12]
(Emphasis supplied)
To accused-appellant,
the statements attributed to him are inadmissible since they were made
out of fear, having been elicited only after Cyra May's parents
"bullied
and questioned him." He thus submits that it was error for the
trial
court to take his failure to deny the statements during the trial as an
admission of guilt.cralaw:red
Accused-appellant's
submission does not persuade. The trial court considered his admission
merely as an additional ground to convince itself of his
culpability.
Even if such admission, as well as the implication of his failure to
deny
the same, were disregarded, the evidence suffices to establish his
guilt
beyond reasonable doubt.cralaw:red
The plain, matter-of-fact
manner by which Cyra May described her abuse in the hands of her Kuya
Ronnie
is an eloquent testament to the truth of her accusations. Thus
she
testified on direct examination:
q-
Do you recall if Ronnie Rullepa did anything to you?chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
a-
Yes, sir.cralaw:red
q-
What did he do to you?
a-
"Sinaksak nya ang titi sa pepe ko, sa puwit ko, at sa bunganga"
q-
How many times did he do that to you?
a-
Twice, sir.cralaw:red
x x x
q-
Do you remember when he did these things to you?
a-
Opo.cralaw:red
q-
When was that?
a-
When my mother was asleep, he put - he removed my panty and inserted
his
penis inside my vagina, my anus and my mouth, sir.cralaw:red
x x x
q-
After your Kuya Ronnie did those things to you what did you feel?
a-
"Sabi nya ganito (Witness putting her finger in her lips) Nasaktan po
ako
at umiyak po ako".cralaw:red
q-
Did you cry because of hurt?
a-
Yes.cralaw:red
q-
What part of your body hurt?
a-
"Pepe ko po." When I went to the bathroom to urinate, I felt pain in my
organ, sir.[13]
Cyra May reiterated
her testimony during cross-examination, providing more revolting
details
of her ordeal:
q-
So, you said that Kuya Ronnie did something to you what did he do to
you
on November 17, 1995?
a-
"Sinaksak nga yong titi nya". He inserted his penis to my organ
and
to my mouth, sir.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
x x x
q-
When you said that your kuya Ronnie inserted his penis into your organ,
into your mouth, and into your anus, would you describe what - his
penis?
a-
It is a round object, sir.cralaw:red
C o u r t:
Is this titi of your
kuya Ronnie a part of his body?
a-
Opo.cralaw:red
q-
Was that in the head of kuya Ronnie?
a-
No, sir.cralaw:red
q-
Which part of his body that titi located?
(Witness pointing to
her groin area)
C o u r t:
Continue
x x x
q-
Why were you in that room?
a-
Gusto nya po matulog ako sa kuwarto niya.cralaw:red
q-
When you were in that room, what did Kuya Ronnie do to you?
a-
"Hinubo po niya ang panty ko."
q-
And after he remove your panty, what did Kuya Ronnie do, what did he do
to you?
a-
He inserted his penis to my organ, sir.cralaw:red
q-
Why did kuya Ronnie, was kuya Ronnie already naked or he was already
wearing
any clothing?
a-
Still had his clothing on, sir.cralaw:red
q-
So, where did his penis, saan lumabas ang penis ni Kuya Ronnie?
a-
Dito po, (Witness referring or pointing to her groin area)
x x x
q-
So, that's the -and at the time, you did not cry and you did not shout
for help?
a-
Sabi nya po, not to make any noise because my mother might be roused
from
sleep.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
q-
How long was kuya Ronnie did that to you?
a-
Matagal po.cralaw:red
q-
After kuya Ronnie scrub his penis to your vagina, what other things did
he do?
a-
After that he inserted his penis to my mouth, and to my anus, sir.cralaw:red
q-
You did not complain and you did not shout?
a-
I cried, sir.[14]
Accused-appellant draws
attention to the statement of Cyra May that he was not in the house on
November 17 (1995), as reflected in the following transcript of her
testimony:
q-
Is it not a fact that you said a while ago that when your father leaves
the house, he [was] usually accompanied by your kuya Ronnie?
a-
Opo.cralaw:red
q-
Why is it that Kuya Ronnie was in the house when you father left the
house
at that time, on November 17?
a-
He was with Kuya Ronnie, sir.cralaw:red
q-
So, it is not correct that kuya Ronnie did something to you because
your
kuya Ronnie [was] always with your Papa?
a-
Yes, sir.[15]
The above-quoted testimony
of Cyra May does not indicate the time when her father Col. Buenafe
left
their house on November 17, 1995 with accused-appellant and, thus, does
not preclude accused-appellant's commission of rape on the same date.
In
any event, a young child is vulnerable to suggestion, hence, her
affirmative
response to the defense counsel's above-quoted leading questions.cralaw:red
As for the variance
in the claim regarding when Gloria was informed of the rape, Gloria
having
testified that she learned of it on November 20, 1995[16]
while Cyra May said that immediately after the incident, she awakened
her
mother who was in the adjacent room and reported it:[17]
This is a minor matter that does not detract from Cyra May's
categorical,
material testimony that accused-appellant inserted his penis into her
vagina.cralaw:red
Accused-appellant goes
on to contend that Cyra May was coached, citing the following portion
of
her testimony:
q-
"Yong sinabi mong sinira nya ang buhay mo," where did you get that
phrase?
a-
It was the word of my Mama, sir.[18]
On the contrary, the
foregoing testimony indicates that Cyra May was really narrating the
truth,
that of hearing her mother utter "sinira niya ang buhay mo."
Accused-appellant's
suggestion that Cyra May merely imagined the things of which he is
accused,
perhaps getting the idea from television programs, is
preposterous.
It is true that "the ordinary child is a ‘great weaver of romances,'''
and her "imagination may induce (her) to relate something she has heard
or read in a story as personal experience."[19]
But Cyra May's account is hardly the stuff of romance or fairy
tales.
Neither is it normal TV fare, if at all.cralaw:red
This Court cannot believe
that a victim of Cyra May's age could concoct a tale of defloration,
allow
the examination of her private parts, and undergo the expense, trouble,
inconvenience, not to mention the trauma of public trial.[20]chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Besides, her testimony
is corroborated by the findings of Dr. Preyra that there were abrasions
in her labia minora, which she opined, could have been caused by
friction
with an erect penis.cralaw:red
This Court thus accords
great weight to the following assessment of the trial court regarding
the
competency and credibility of Cyra May as a witness:
Her very tender age
notwithstanding, Cyra Ma(y) nonetheless appeared to possess the
necessary
intelligence and perceptiveness sufficient to invest her with the
competence
to testify about her experience. She might have been an
impressionable
child - as all others of her age are - but her narration of Kuya
Ronnie's
placing his "titi" in her "pepe" was certainly one which could not be
considered
as a common child's tale. Her responses during the examination of
counsel and of the Court established her consciousness of the
distinction
between good and bad, which rendered inconceivable for her to describe
a "bad" act of the accused unless it really happened to her.
Needless
to state, she described the act of the accused as bad. Her
demeanor
as a witness - manifested during trial by her unhesitant, spontaneous,
and plain responses to questions - further enhanced her claim to credit
and trustworthiness.[21]
(Italics in the original)
In a futile attempt
at exculpation, accused-appellant claims that even before the alleged
incident
Cyra May was already suffering from pain in urinating. He
surmises
that she could have scratched herself which caused the abrasions.
Dr. Preyra, however, was quick to rule out this possibility. She
stated categorically that that part of the female organ is very
sensitive
and rubbing or scratching it is painful.[22]
The abrasions could not, therefore, have been self-inflicted.cralaw:red
That the Medical-Legal
Officer found "no external signs of recent application of any form of
trauma
at the time of the examination" does not preclude accused-appellant's
conviction
since the infliction of force is immaterial in statutory rape.[23]
More. That Cyra
May suffered pain in her vagina but not in her anus despite her
testimony
that accused-appellant inserted his penis in both orifices does not
diminish
her credibility. It is possible that accused-appellant's penis
failed
to penetrate her anus as deeply as it did her vagina, the former being
more resistant to extreme forces than the latter.cralaw:red
Accused-appellant's
imputation of ill motive on the part of Gloria is puerile. No
mother
in her right mind would subject her child to the humiliation, disgrace
and trauma attendant to a prosecution for rape if she were not
motivated
solely by the desire to incarcerate the person responsible for the
child's
defilement.[24]
Courts are seldom, if at all, convinced that a mother would stoop so
low
as to subject her daughter to physical hardship and shame concomitant
to
a rape prosecution just to assuage her own hurt feelings.[25]
Alternatively, accused-appellant
prays that he be held liable for acts of lasciviousness instead of
rape,
apparently on the basis of the following testimony of Cyra May, quoted
verbatim, that he merely "scrubbed" his penis against her vagina:
q-
Is it not a fact that kuya Ronnie just made some scrubbed his penis
into
your vagina?
a-
Yes, sir.cralaw:red
q-
And when - he did not actually penetrated your vagina?
a-
Yes, sir.[26]
Dr. Preya, however,
found abrasions in the labia minora, which is "directly beneath the
labia
majora,"[27]
proving that there was indeed penetration of the vagina, not just a
mere
rubbing or "scrubbing" of the penis against its surface.cralaw:red
In fine, the crime committed
by accused-appellant is not merely acts of lasciviousness but statutory
rape.cralaw:red
The two elements of
statutory rape are (1) that the accused had carnal knowledge of a
woman,
and (2) that the woman is below twelve years of age.[28]
As shown in the previous discussion, the first element, carnal
knowledge,
had been established beyond reasonable doubt. The same is true
with
respect to the second element.cralaw:red
The victim's age is
relevant in rape cases since it may constitute an element of the
offense.
Article 335 of the Revised Penal Code, as amended by Republic Act No.
7659,[29]
provides:chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Art. 335. When and how
rape is committed. - Rape is committed by having carnal knowledge of a
woman under any of the following circumstances:
x x x.cralaw:red
3. When the woman is
under twelve years of age x x x.cralaw:red
x x x.cralaw:red
The crime of rape shall
be punished by reclusion perpetua.cralaw:red
x x x.cralaw:red
Furthermore, the victim's
age may constitute a qualifying circumstance, warranting the imposition
of the death sentence. The same Article states:
The death penalty shall
also be imposed if the crime of rape is committed with any of the
following
attendant circumstances:
1. when the
victim is under eighteen (18) years of age and the offender is a
parent,
ascendant, step-parent, guardian, relative by consanguinity or affinity
with the third civil degree, or the common-law spouse of the parent of
the victim.cralaw:red
x x x.cralaw:red
4. when the victim
is x x x a child below seven (7) years old.cralaw:red
x x x.cralaw:red
Because of the seemingly
conflicting decisions regarding the sufficiency of evidence of the
victim's
age in rape cases, this Court, in the recently decided case of People
v.
Pruna,[30]
established a set of guidelines in appreciating age as an element of
the
crime or as a qualifying circumstance, to wit:
1. The best evidence
to prove the age of the offended party is an original or certified true
copy of the certificate of live birth of such party.cralaw:red
2. In the absence of
a certificate of live birth, similar authentic documents such as
baptismal
certificate and school records which show the date of birth of the
victim
would suffice to prove age.cralaw:red
3. If the certificate
of live birth or authentic document is shown to have been lost or
destroyed
or otherwise unavailable, the testimony, if clear and credible, of the
victim's mother or a member of the family either by affinity or
consanguinity
who is qualified to testify on matters respecting pedigree such as the
exact age or date of birth of the offended party pursuant to Section
40,
Rule 130 of the Rules on Evidence shall be sufficient under the
following
circumstances:
a. If the victim is
alleged to be below 3 years of age and what is sought to be proved is
that
she is less than 7 years old;
b. If the victim is
alleged to be below 7 years of age and what is sought to be proved is
that
she is less than 12 years old;
c. If the victim is
alleged to be below 12 years of age and what is sought to be proved is
that she is less than 18 years old.cralaw:red
4. In the absence of
a certificate of live birth, authentic document, or the testimony of
the
victim's mother or relatives concerning the victim's age, the
complainant's
testimony will suffice provided that it is expressly and clearly
admitted
by the accused.cralaw:red
5. It is the prosecution
that has the burden of proving the age of the offended party. The
failure of the accused to object to the testimonial evidence regarding
age shall not be taken against him.cralaw:red
6. The trial court should
always make a categorical finding as to the age of the victim.cralaw:red
Applying the foregoing
guidelines, this Court in the Pruna case held that the therein
accused-appellant
could only be sentenced to suffer the penalty of reclusion perpetua
since:
x x x no birth certificate
or any similar authentic document, such as a baptismal certificate of
LIZETTE,
was presented to prove her age. x x x.cralaw:red
x x x.cralaw:red
However, the Medico-Legal
Report relied upon by the trial court does not in any way prove the age
of LIZETTE, for there is nothing therein which even mentions her
age.
Only testimonial evidence was presented to establish LIZETTE's
age.
Her mother, Jacqueline, testified (that the victim was three years old
at the time of the commission of the crime).chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
x x x
Likewise, LIZETTE testified
on 20 November 1996, or almost two years after the incident, that she
was
5 years old. However, when the defense counsel asked her how old
she was on 3 January 1995, or at the time of the rape, she replied that
she was 5 years old. Upon further question as to the date she was born,
she could not answer.cralaw:red
For PRUNA to be convicted
of rape in its qualified form and meted the supreme penalty of death,
it
must be established with certainty that LIZETTE was below 7 years old
at
the time of the commission of the crime. It must be stressed that
the severity of the death penalty, especially its irreversible and
final
nature once carried out, makes the decision-making process in capital
offenses
aptly subject to the most exacting rules of procedure and evidence.cralaw:red
In view of the uncertainty
of LIZETTE's exact age, corroborative evidence such as her birth
certificate,
baptismal certificate or any other authentic document should be
introduced
in evidence in order that the qualifying circumstance of "below seven
(7)
years old" is appreciated against the appellant. The lack of
objection
on the part of the defense as to her age did not excuse the prosecution
from discharging its burden. That the defense invoked LIZETTE's
tender
age for purposes of questioning her competency to testify is not
necessarily
an admission that she was below 7 years of age when PRUNA raped her on
3 January 1995. Such being the case, PRUNA cannot be convicted of
qualified rape, and hence the death penalty cannot be imposed on him.cralaw:red
However, conformably
with no. 3 (b) of the foregoing guidelines, the testimony of LIZETTE's
mother that she was 3 years old at the time of the commission of the
crime
is sufficient for purposes of holding PRUNA liable for statutory rape,
or rape of a girl below 12 years of age. Under the second
paragraph
of Article 335, as amended by R.A. No. 7659, in relation to no. 3 of
the
first paragraph thereof, having carnal knowledge of a woman under 12
years
of age is punishable by reclusion perpetua. Thus, the penalty to
be imposed on PRUNA should be reclusion perpetua, and not death
penalty.
(Italics in the origina.)
Several cases[31]
suggest that courts may take "judicial notice" of the appearance of the
victim in determining her age. For example, the Court, in People
v. Tipay,[32]
qualified the ruling in People v. Javier,[33]
which required the presentation of the birth certificate to prove the
rape
victim's age, with the following pronouncement:
This does not mean,
however, that the presentation of the certificate of birth is at all
times
necessary to prove minority. The minority of a victim of tender
age
who may be below the age of ten is quite manifest and the court can
take
judicial notice thereof. The crucial years pertain to the ages of
fifteen to seventeen where minority may seem to be dubitable due to
one's
physical appearance. In this situation, the prosecution has the
burden
of proving with certainty the fact that the victim was under 18 years
of
age when the rape was committed in order to justify the imposition of
the
death penalty under the above-cited provision. (Emphasis supplied.)
On the other hand, a
handful of cases[34]
holds that courts, without the requisite hearing prescribed by Section
3, Rule 129 of the Rules of Court,[35]
cannot take judicial notice of the victim's age.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Judicial notice signifies
that there are certain "facta probanda," or propositions in a party's
case,
as to which he will not be required to offer evidence; these will be
taken
for true by the tribunal without the need of evidence.[36]
Judicial notice, however, is a phrase sometimes used in a loose way to
cover some other judicial action. Certain rules of Evidence,
usually
known under other names, are frequently referred to in terms of
judicial
notice.[37]
The process by which
the trier of facts judges a person's age from his or her appearance
cannot
be categorized as judicial notice. Judicial notice is based upon
convenience and expediency for it would certainly be superfluous,
inconvenient,
and expensive both to parties and the court to require proof, in the
ordinary
way, of facts which are already known to courts.[38]
As Tundag puts it, it "is the cognizance of certain facts which judges
may properly take and act on without proof because they already know
them."
Rule 129 of the Rules of Court, where the provisions governing judicial
notice are found, is entitled "What Need Not Be Proved." When the trier
of facts observes the appearance of a person to ascertain his or her
age,
he is not taking judicial notice of such fact; rather, he is
conducting
an examination of the evidence, the evidence being the appearance of
the
person. Such a process militates against the very concept of
judicial
notice, the object of which is to do away with the presentation of
evidence.cralaw:red
This is not to say that
the process is not sanctioned by the Rules of Court; on the contrary,
it
does. A person's appearance, where relevant, is admissible
as
object evidence, the same being addressed to the senses of the
court.
Section 1, Rule 130 provides:
SECTION 1. Object
as evidence. - Objects as evidence are those addressed to the senses of
the court. When an object is relevant to the fact in issue, it
may
be exhibited to, examined or viewed by the court.cralaw:red
"To be sure," one author
writes, "this practice of inspection by the court of objects, things or
persons relevant to the fact in dispute, has its roots in ancient
judicial
procedure."[39]
The author proceeds to quote from another authority:
"Nothing is older or
commoner in the administration of law in all countries than the
submission
to the senses of the tribunal itself, whether judge or jury, of objects
which furnish evidence. The view of the land by the jury, in real
actions, of a wound by the judge where mayhem was alleged, and of the
person
of one alleged to be an infant, in order to fix his age, the inspection
and comparison of seals, the examination of writings, to determine
whether
they are (‘)blemished,(') the implements with which a crime was
committed
or of a person alleged, in a bastardy proceeding, to be the child of
another,
are few illustrations of what may be found abundantly in our own legal
records and textbooks for seven centuries past."[40]
(Emphasis supplied)
A person's appearance,
as evidence of age (for example, of infancy, or of being under the age
of consent to intercourse), is usually regarded as relevant; and, if
so,
the tribunal may properly observe the person brought before it.[41]
Experience teaches that corporal appearances are approximately an index
of the age of their bearer, particularly for the marked extremes of old
age and youth. In every case such evidence should be accepted and
weighed for what it may be in each case worth. In particular, the
outward physical appearance of an alleged minor may be considered in
judging
his age; a contrary rule would for such an inference be pedantically
over-cautious.[42]
Consequently, the jury or the court trying an issue of fact may be
allowed
to judge the age of persons in court by observation of such persons.[43]
The formal offer of the person as evidence is not necessary. The
examination and cross-examination of a party before the jury are
equivalent
to exhibiting him before the jury and an offer of such person as an
exhibit
is properly refused.[44]chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
This Court itself has
sanctioned the determination of an alien's age from his
appearance.
In Braca v. Collector of Customs,[45]
this Court ruled that:
The customs authorities
may also determine from the personal appearance of the immigrant what
his
age is. The person of a Chinese alien seeking admission into the
Philippine Islands is evidence in an investigation by the board of
special
inquiry to determine his right to enter; and such body may take into
consideration
his appearance to determine or assist in determining his age and a
finding
that the applicant is not a minor based upon such appearance is not
without
evidence to support it.cralaw:red
This Court has also
implicitly recognized the same process in a criminal case. Thus,
in United States v. Agadas,[46]
this Court held:
Rosario Sabacahan testified
that he was 17 years of age; that he had never purchased a cedula; and
that he was going to purchase a cedula the following january.
Thereupon
the court asked this defendant these questions: "You are a pretty big
boy
for seventeen." Answer: "I cannot tell exactly because I do not
remember
when I was born, but 17 years is my guess." Court: "If you are
going
to take advantage of that excuse, you had better get some positive
evidence
to that effect." Answer: "I do not remember, as I already stated
on what date and in what year I was born." The court, in
determining
the question of the age of the defendant, Rosario Sabacahan, said:
"The defendant, Rosario
Sabacahan, testified that he thought that he was about 17 years of age,
but judging by his appearance he is a youth 18 or 19 years old.
He
has shown that he has no positive information on the subject and no
effort
was made by the defense to prove the fact that he is entitled to the
mitigating
circumstance of article 9, paragraph 2, of the Penal code, which fact
it
is held to be incumbent upon the defense to establish by satisfactory
evidence
in order to enable the court to give an accused person the benefit of
the
mitigating circumstance."chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
In United States vs.
Estavillo and Perez (10 Off. Gaz., 1984) Estavillo testified, when the
case was tried in the court below, that he then was only 16 years of
age.
There was no other testimony in the record with reference to his
age.
But the trial judge said: "The accused Estavillo, notwithstanding his
testimony
giving his age as 16 years, is, as a matter of fact, not less than
20."
This court, in passing upon the age of Estavillo, held:
"We presume that the
trial court reached this conclusion with reference to the age of
Estavillo
from the latter's personal appearance. There is no proof in the
record,
as we have said, which even tends to establish the assertion that this
appellant understated his age. * * * It is true that the trial
court
had an opportunity to note the personal appearance of Estavillo for the
purpose of determining his age, and by so doing reached the conclusion
that he was at least 20, just two years over 18. This appellant
testified
that he was only 16, and this testimony stands uncontradicted.
Taking
into consideration the marked difference in the penalties to be imposed
upon that age, we must, therefore, conclude (resolving all doubts in
favor
of the appellants) that the appellants' ages were 16 and 14
respectively."
While it is true that
in the instant case Rosario testified that he was 17 years of age, yet
the trial court reached the conclusion, judging from the personal
appearance
of Rosario, that "he is a youth 18 or 19 years old." Applying the
rule enunciated in the case just cited, we must conclude that there
exists
a reasonable doubt, at least, with reference to the question whether
Rosario
was, in fact 18 years of age at the time the robbery was
committed.
This doubt must be resolved in favor of the defendant, and he is,
therefore,
sentenced to six months of arresto mayor in lieu of six years ten
months
and one day of presidio mayor. x x x.cralaw:red
There can be no question,
therefore, as to the admissibility of a person's appearance in
determining
his or her age. As to the weight to accord such appearance,
especially
in rape cases, Pruna laid down guideline no. 3, which is again
reproduced
hereunder:
3. If the certificate
of live birth or authentic document is shown to have been lost or
destroyed
or otherwise unavailable, the testimony, if clear and credible, of the
victim's mother or a member of the family either by affinity or
consanguinity
who is qualified to testify on matters respecting pedigree such as the
exact age or date of birth of the offended party pursuant to Section
40,
Rule 130 of the Rules on Evidence shall be sufficient under the
following
circumstances:
a. If the victim is
alleged to be below 3 years of age and what is sought to be proved is
that
she is less than 7 years old;
b. If the victim is
alleged to be below 7 years of age and what is sought to be proved is
that
she is less than 12 years old;
c. If the victim is
alleged to be below 12 years of age and what is sought to be proved is
that she is less than 18 years old.cralaw:red
Under the above guideline,
the testimony of a relative with respect to the age of the victim is
sufficient
to constitute proof beyond reasonable doubt in cases (a), (b) and (c)
above.
In such cases, the disparity between the allegation and the proof of
age
is so great that the court can easily determine from the appearance of
the victim the veracity of the testimony. The appearance
corroborates
the relative's testimony.cralaw:red
As the alleged age approaches
the age sought to be proved, the person's appearance, as object
evidence
of her age, loses probative value. Doubt as to her true age
becomes
greater and, following Agadas, supra, such doubt must be resolved in
favor
of the accused.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
This is because in the
era of modernism and rapid growth, the victim's mere physical
appearance
is not enough to gauge her exact age. For the extreme penalty of
death to be upheld, nothing but proof beyond reasonable doubt of every
fact necessary to constitute the crime must be substantiated.
Verily,
the minority of the victim should be not only alleged but likewise
proved
with equal certainty and clearness as the crime itself. Be it
remembered
that the proof of the victim's age in the present case spells the
difference
between life and death.[47]
In the present case,
the prosecution did not offer the victim's certificate of live birth or
similar authentic documents in evidence. The victim and her
mother,
however, testified that she was only three years old at the time of the
rape. Cyra May's testimony goes:
q-
Your name is Cyra Mae is that correct?
a-
Yes, sir.cralaw:red
q-
And you are 3 years old?
a-
Yes, sir.[48]
That of her mother goes:
Q
How old was your daughter when there things happened?
A
3 and 1/2 years old.cralaw:red
Q
When was she born?
A
In Manila, May 10, 1992.[49]
Because of the vast
disparity between the alleged age (three years old) and the age sought
to be proved (below twelve years), the trial court would have had no
difficulty
ascertaining the victim's age from her appearance. No reasonable
doubt, therefore, exists that the second element of statutory rape,
i.e.,
that the victim was below twelve years of age at the time of the
commission
of the offense, is present.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Whether the victim was
below seven years old, however, is another matter. Here,
reasonable
doubt exists. A mature three and a half-year old can easily be
mistaken
for an underdeveloped seven-year old. The appearance of the
victim,
as object evidence, cannot be accorded much weight and, following
Pruna,
the testimony of the mother is, by itself, insufficient.cralaw:red
As it has not been established
with moral certainty that Cyra May was below seven years old at the
time
of the commission of the offense, accused-appellant cannot be sentenced
to suffer the death penalty. Only the penalty of reclusion
perpetua
can be imposed upon him.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
In line with settled
jurisprudence, the civil indemnity awarded by the trial court is
increased
to P50,000.00. In addition, Cyra May is entitled to an award of
moral
damages in the amount of P50,000.00.[50]
WHEREFORE, the Decision
of the Regional Trial Court of Quezon City, Branch 96, is AFFIRMED with
MODIFICATION. Accused-appellant Ronnie Rullepa y Guinto is found
GUILTY of Statutory Rape, defined and punished by Article 335 (3) of
the
Revised Penal Code, as amended, and is sentenced to suffer the penalty
of reclusion perpetua. He is ordered to pay private complainant,
Cyra May Buenafe y Francisco, the amount of P50,000.00 as civil
indemnity
and P50,000.00 as moral damages.cralaw:red
SO ORDERED.cralaw:red
Davide, Jr., C.J.,
Bellosillo,
Puno, Vitug, Mendoza, Panganiban, Quisumbing, Sandoval-Gutierrez,
Carpio,
Austria-Martinez, Callejo, Sr., and Azcuna, JJ., concur.
Ynares-Santiago, and
Corona, JJ., on leave.cralaw:red
____________________________
Endnotes:
[1]
Records at 1.
[2]
Id. at 12.
[3]
Also appears in the records as Cyra "Mae."
[4]
Col. Buenafe's first name is not indicated in the records.
[5]
Exhibit "A."chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[6]
TSN, May 20, 1996 at 5-11.
[7]
Exhibit "C."chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[8]
TSN, March 13, 1997 at 4-11.
[9]
TSN, June 6, 1997 at 6-7.
[10]
Records at 104.
[11]
Rollo at 49-50.
[12]
Records at 103.
[13]
TSN, November 15, 1996 at 5-8.
[14]
TSN, January 7, 1997 at 7-10.
[15]
Id. at 6.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[16]
TSN, May 20, 1996 at 6.
[17]
TSN, January 7, 1997 at 11-12.
[18]
Id. at 14.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[19]
Salonga, J.R., Philippine Law on Evidence (3rd Ed.) 193.
[20]
People v. Baygar, 318 SCRA 358 (1999).
[21]
Records at 100.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[22]
TSN, March 13, 1997 at 10.
[23]
People v. Samodio, G. R. Nos. 134139-40, February 15, 2002.
[24]
People v. Perez, 319 SCRA 622 (1999).
[25]
People v. Marcelo, 305 SCRA 105 (1999).
[26]
TSN, January 7, 1997 at 11.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[27]
People v. Marcelo, supra, Note 25.
[28]
People v. Bato, 325 SCRA 671 (2000).
[29]
An Act to Impose the Death Penalty on Certain Heinous Crimes, Amending
for that Purpose the Revised Penal Code, as Amended, Other Special
Penal
Laws, and for Other Purposes.
[30]
G.R. No. 138471, October 10, 2002.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[31]
Vide People v. Bali-balita, 340 SCRA 450 (2000); People v. Rivera, 362
SCRA 153 (2001); People v. Abaño, G.R. No. 142728, January 23,
2002.
[32]
329 SCRA 52 (2000).chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[33]
311 SCRA 122 (1999).
[34]
Vide People v. Tundag, 342 SCRA 704 (2000); People v. Liban, 345 SCRA
453
(2000); People v. Lachica, G.R. No. 143677, May 9, 2002.
[35]
SEC. 3. Judicial notice, when hearing necessary. - During the trial,
the
court, on its own initiative, or on request of a party, may announce
its
intention to take judicial notice of any matter and allow the
parties
to be heard thereon.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
After
the trial, and before judgment or an appeal, the proper court, on its
own
initiative or on request of a party, may take judicial notice of any
matter
and allow the parties to be heard thereon if such matter is decisive of
a material issue in the case.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[36]
9 Wigmore, J. H., A Treatise on the Anglo-American System of Evidence
in
Trials at Common Law (3rd Ed.) §2565.
[37]
Id. at §2566.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[38]
5 Moran M.V., Comments on the Rules of Court (1980 Ed.) 38.
[39]
Salonga, supra, Note 19, at 89.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[40]
Ibid. citing Thayer, Cases on Evidence (2nd) 720.
[41]
4 Wigmore at §1154.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[42]
2 Wigmore at §222, cited in People v. Montalvo (482 P. 2d 205),
Watson
v. State (140 N.E.2d 109), and State v. Fries (17 N.W.2d 578).
[43]
32 C.J.S. Evidence §609.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[44]
Ibid., cited in Watson v. State, supra, Note 42.
[45]
36 Phil. 930 (1917). Vide also Tan Beko vs. Insular Collector of
Customs, 26 Phil. 254 (1913); Lim Cheng vs. Collector of Customs,
42 Phil. 876 (1920).
[46]
36 Phil. 246 (1917).chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[47]
People v. Quezada, G. R. No. 135551-58, January 30, 2002.
[48]
TSN, January 7, 1997 at 4.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[49]
TSN, May 20, 1996 at 11.
[50]
People v. Rafales, 323 SCRA 13 (2000). |