7/24/2019 Evidence Digested Cases
1/27
Sec 44, Rule 130
G.R. No. 191972, January 26, 2015
HENRY ONG LY H!N,Petitioner, v."O#R$ O% &&ELS '2N( (!)!S!ON*, HON.
G+R!EL $. !NGLES, S &RES!(!NG J#(GE O% R$" +RN"H 5, "E+# "!$Y,N( $HE &EO&LE O% $HE &H!L!&&!NES,Respondents.
( E " ! S ! O N
LEONEN,J.-
(ocr/ne- The registry return card is the official . . . record evidencing service by mail. Itcarries the presumption that it was prepared in the course of official duties that have been
regularly performed [and, therefore,] it is presumed to be accurate, unless proven otherwise[.]
%ac-
On ebruary !, "###, the $T% of %ebu %ity convicted petitioner &enry Ong 'ay &in and
'eo Obsioma, (r. of the crime of estafa punishable under the $evised )enal %ode. * motion for
reconsideration of said decision was denied and the case had been further elevated to the %ourt
of *ppeals. The %ourt of *ppeals nevertheless affirmed the trial court+s ruling thereby
remanding the case to the latter for eecution. It was only after the lapse of si years when
petitioner Ong was arrested in )asay %ity and to which, he filed with the -upreme %ourt a
)etition for %ertiorari, )rohibition and andamus with application for preliminary and/or
mandatory in0unction alleging that he did not receive notice of the denial of his appeal and if
fault be attributed, such may be blamed upon his counsel+s negligence to inform him of the samethereby denying him of his right to due process. The )eople of the )hilippines commented that
the registry return card corresponding to the copy of the %ourt of *ppeal+s $esolution sent to
Ong+s former counsel indicated that his counsel received the resolution on *pril "1, "##2.
ailure therefore by the petitioner to appeal within the reglementary period rendered the
0udgment against him final and eecutory.
!ue-3hether the registry return card sent to Ong+s former counsel served as valid notice ofdenial of petitioner+s appeal.
Rul/n-
Ye. $e re/ry reurn car en o On orer counel / al/ an 8/n/n /e :e//oner.
The registry return card is the official . . . record evidencing service by mail.It carries
the presumption that it was prepared in the course of official duties that have been regularly
performed [and, therefore,] it is presumed to be accurate, unless proven otherwise[.]Prepared by:Domingo, Roxanne G.2011-015291
7/24/2019 Evidence Digested Cases
2/27
)etitioner failed to rebut this presumption.
The affidavits of petitioner+s wife and mother4in4law, ary *nn Ong and 5ila apilit, stating
that petitioner+s former counsel told them that the law office never received a copy of the
$esolution, are inadmissible in evidence for being hearsay. oreover, contrary to petitioner+sfalse claim, his former counsel had notice that the %ourt of *ppeals denied the otion for
$econsideration as early as *pril "6, "##7 when his counsel received a copy of the trial court+sOrder directing the issuance of a warrant of arrest against petitioner.
3ith petitioner failing to rebut this presumption, it must be presumed that his former counselreceived a copy of the $esolution on *pril "1, "##2 as indicated in the registry return card. The
684day period to appeal commenced from this date.-ince petitioner did not file an *ppeal within
68 days from *pril "1, "##2, the 9ecision became final and eecutory on ay 68, "##2.
%onse:uently, the %ourt of *ppeals did not gravely abuse its discretion in issuing the ;ntry of
(udgment, which declared petitioner+s conviction final and eecutory as of ay 68, "##2.
7/24/2019 Evidence Digested Cases
3/27
Sec/on 44, Rule 130
G.R. No. 207635, %e8ruary 1, 2015
&EO&LE O% $HE &H!L!&&!NES,Plaintiff-Appellee, v.(N$E (EL &E;1N(
(ENN!S (EL!
7/24/2019 Evidence Digested Cases
4/27
Rul/n-
Ye, e :roecu/on eec/ely ea8l/e e eleen o e cr/e care.
The elements necessary for the prosecution of a charge for illegal sale of dangerous drugs under
-ection 8, *rticle II of $.*. 16@8 areF B6C the identities of the buyer and the seller, the ob0ect, andthe considerationG and B"C the delivery of the thing sold and the payment therefor.
On the other hand, the elements of the crime of illegal possession of dangerous drug areF BaC the
accused is in possession of an item or ob0ect that is identified to be a prohibited or dangerous
drugG BbC such possession is not authoriHed by lawG and BcC the accused freely and consciously
possessed the drug.
*ll the elements of the crimes of illegal sale and illegal possession ofshabu, a dangerous drug,
were clearly proven by the prosecution through the credible testimony of IO6 Dintanar. The
identity of the parties to the sale transaction B9ela )eAa and IO6 DintanarC involving the sub0ect
sachet ofshabu worth )2##.## and the consummation of the sale were duly established by IO6
Dintanar. IO6 Dintanar+s testimony li=ewise established the illegal possession of sachets
ofshabuby 9ela )eAa and 9elima. 5o ill4motive was shown by the defense for IO6 Dintanar to
un0ustly implicate 9ela )eAa and 9elima in the present cases. 3here there is no evidence that
the principal witness for the prosecution was actuated by improper motive, li=e IO6 Dintanar in
the present case, the presumption is that he was not actuated and his testimony is entitled to full
faith and credit.
The contents of the plastic sachet sold by 9ela )eAa to IO6 Dintanar and the four sachets foundin the former+s possession, as well as, the single sachet seiHed from 9elima, all tested positive for
Methamphetamine Hydrochlorideorshabu, a dangerous drug, upon the laboratory eamination
conducted by % -ahagun. &er findings are contained in %hemistry $eport 5o. 94@@24"##!, the
genuineness and due eecution of which was admitted by the defense. >erily, the report of a
government forensic chemist regarding a recovered prohibited drug en0oys the presumption of
regularity as to its preparation. ?eing an official record made in the performance of %
-ahagun+s official duty, the entries in %hemistry $eport 5o. 94@@24"##! areprima
facieevidence of the facts they state. 9ela )eAa and 9elima failed to overcome with competent
evidence the positive findings forshabuof the contents of the sub0ect sachets as contained in
%hemistry $eport 5o. 94@@24"##!.
Prepared by:Domingo, Roxanne G.2011-015291
7/24/2019 Evidence Digested Cases
5/27
7/24/2019 Evidence Digested Cases
6/27
*t any rate, this %ourt finds nothing out of the ordinary nor irregular in the mailing of the
motion of respondents as would put in doubt the timeliness of its filing. The mailing of the
motion was done on the deadline for the filing and service of such, which was October "6, "##8,
as indicated by the post office on the envelopes as well as in the registry receipts sent to the
5'$%. Thus, the motion is considered filed on that date and the filing was on time. )etitioner
does not dispute but even admits the fact that the envelopes and registry receipts bear that date.
The rule is that whenever the filing of a motion or pleading is not done personally, the date of
mailing Bby registered mailC, as indicated by the post office on the envelope or the registry
receipt, is considered as the date of filing. The fact that the post office indicated October "6,
"##8 on the envelope and receipts as the mailing date, as eamined first4hand by the 5'$%
based on its records, entitles respondents to the presumption that the motion was indeed mailed
on said date. Official duties in this case, of a post office employee are presumed to be
regularly performed, unless there is an assertion otherwise and the one so asserting rebuts such
with affirmative evidence of irregularity or failure to perform a duty. In addition, the stamps and
mar=s made by the postal wor=er are considered entries in the regular course of duty which areconsidered accurate unless proven otherwise.
Prepared by:Domingo, Roxanne G.2011-015291
7/24/2019 Evidence Digested Cases
7/27
Sec/on 40 an 41, Rule 130
G.R. No. 212336, July 15, 2015
&EO&LE O% $HE &H!L!&&!NES,Plaintiff-Appellee, v.RSEN!O (.
Appellant.
( E " ! S ! O N
)!LLR
7/24/2019 Evidence Digested Cases
8/27
be found guilty of simple rape because ***+s minority was not proven in evidence in accord
with 0urisprudence.
!ue- 3hether accused4appellant could only be charged of simple rape instead of statutory rapein relation to violation of $* E@6# because of the absence of ***+s %ertificate of 'ive ?irth to
the prosecution+s formal offer.
Rul/n-
ccue?a::ellan can only 8e care o /:le ra:e.
This %ourt has held that for minority to be considered as an element of a crime or a
:ualifying circumstance in the crime of rape, it must not only be alleged in the Information, but itmust also be established with moral certainty.
7/24/2019 Evidence Digested Cases
9/27
@. The trial court should always ma=e a categorical finding as to the age of the victim. B%itations
omittedC
*bsent ***Js certificate of live birth and other means by which her age as alleged in the
Information could have been ascertained beyond doubt, this %ourt is constrained to agree withthe %* and deem the crime committed as simple rape.
Prepared by:Domingo, Roxanne G.2011-015291
7/24/2019 Evidence Digested Cases
10/27
Sec/on 42, Rule 130
G.R. No.179535 June 9, 2014
JOSE ES&!NEL! [email protected]. (N!LO ES&!NEL!,)etitioner,
vs.&EO&LE O% $HE &!(L!&&!NES,$espondent.
$ ; - O ' < T I O 5
(EL "S$!LLO,J.:
(ocr/ne- ;vidence is hearsay when its probative force depends in whole or in part on thecompetency and credibility of some persons other than the witness by whom it is sought toproduce. &owever, while the testimony of a witness regarding a statement made by another
person given for the purpose of establishing the truth of the fact asserted in the statement is
clearly hearsay evidence, it is otherwise if the purpose of placing the statement on the record ismerely to establish the fact that the statement, or the tenor of such statement, was made.
$egardless of the truth or falsity of a statement, when what is relevant is the fact that such
statement has been made, the hearsay rule does not apply and the statement may be shown. *s amatter of fact, evidence as to the ma=ing of the statement is not secondary but primary, for the
statement itself may constitute a fact in issue or is circumstantially relevant as to the eistence of
such a fact. This is =nown as the doctrine of independently relevant statements.
%ac-
In the early evening of 9ecember 68, 611@, *lberto ?erbon y 9ownie, a 714year old
-enior 9es= %oordinator of the radio station 9L, was shot in the head and different parts ofthe body in front of his house in Imus, %avite. eanwhile, the group of *tty. Orly 9iHon of the
5ational ?ureau of Investigation B5?IC arrested and too= into custody one $omeo $eyes for thecrime of Illegal )ossession of 9eadly 3eapon. $eyes confided to the group of *tty. 9iHon that
he was willing to give vital information regarding the ?erbon case. In due course, 5?I *gent
9ave -eguinal interviewed $eyes and reduced the latter+s statement into writing whereby $eyesclaimed that on 9ecember 68, 611@, he saw petitioner and -otero )aredes board a red car while
armed with a .78 caliber firearm and armalite respectivelyG and that petitioner told )aredes that
ayaw =o nang abutin pa ng bu=as yang si ?erbon. -ubse:uently, $eyes was released upon
posting bail but was never again heard of. 9uring trial, 5?I *gent -eguinal testified on thesefacts. The trial court convicted petitioner and others of the crime of murder considering the
aggravating circumstance of night time and abuse of authority which was modified by the %ourtof *ppeals to homicide.
!ue- 3hether the prosecution failed to prove the guilt of the petitioner beyond reasonabledoubt since it was only the 5?I *gent who testified on the fact that $eyes saw the accused on
the date of ?erbon+s assault.
Prepared by:Domingo, Roxanne G.2011-015291
7/24/2019 Evidence Digested Cases
11/27
Rul/n-
$e :roecu/on a a8le o :roe :e//oner u/l 8eyon reaona8le ou8rou e c/rcuan/al e/ence a a/e e cae.
5?I *gent -egunial testified that he had investigated $eyes and reduced the latter+sstatement into writing declaring, among others, that in the morning of 9ecember 68, 611@, he
B$eyesC overheard petitioner telling -otero M*yaw =o nang abutin pa ng bu=as yang si ?erbonM
and saw them armed with .78 caliber pistol and an armalite, respectively, before boarding a redcar. The %* gave weight to $eyes+ sworn statement in this wiseF
The probative value of $omeo $eyes+s sworn statement as to the words spo=en by appellant to
his co4accused -otero )aredes in the morning of 9ecember 68, 611@ cannot be disputed.
The hearsay evidence rule as provided under -ection 2@, $ule 62# of the $ules of %ourt statesF
-ec. 2@. Testimony generally confined to personal =nowledgeG hearsay ecluded. * witness cantestify only to those facts which he =nows of his personal =nowledgeG that is, which are derived
from his own perception, ecept as otherwise provided in these rules.
;vidence is hearsay when its probative force depends in whole or in part on the competency and
credibility of some persons other than the witness by whom it is sought to produce. &owever,while the testimony of a witness regarding a statement made by another person given for the
purpose of establishing the truth of the fact asserted in the statement is clearly hearsay evidence,
it is otherwise if the purpose of placing the statement on the record is merely to establish the fact
that the statement, or the tenor of such statement, was made. $egardless of the truth or falsity ofa statement, when what is relevant is the fact that such statement has been made, the hearsay rule
does not apply and the statement may be shown. *s a matter of fact, evidence as to the ma=ing ofthe statement is not secondary but primary, for the statement itself may constitute a fact in issue
or is circumstantially relevant as to the eistence of such a fact. This is =nown as the doctrine of
independently relevant statements.
In the present case, the testimony of 5?I *gent -egunial that while he was investigating $eyes,the latter confided to him that he B$eyesC heard petitioner telling -otero M*yaw =o nang abutin pa
ng bu=as yang si ?erbonM and that he saw the two Bpetitioner and -oteroC armed with a .78
caliber pistol and an armalite, respectively, before boarding a red car, cannot be regarded as
hearsay evidence. This is considering that 5?I *gent -egunial+s testimony was not presented toprove the truth of such statement but only for the purpose of establishing that on ebruary 6#,
611E, $eyes eecuted a sworn statement containing such narration of facts. This is clear from the
offer of the witness+ oral testimony. oreover, 5?I *gent -egunial himself candidly admittedthat he is incompetent to testify on the truthfulness of $eyes+ statement. >erily then, what the
prosecution sought to be admitted was the fact that $eyes made such narration of facts in his
sworn statement and not necessarily to prove the truth thereof. Thus, the testimony of 5?I *gent
Prepared by:Domingo, Roxanne G.2011-015291
7/24/2019 Evidence Digested Cases
12/27
-egunial is in the nature of an independently relevant statement where what is relevant is the fact
that $eyes made such statement and the truth and falsity thereof is immaterial. In such a case, the
statement of the witness is admissible as evidence and the hearsay rule does not apply.
Prepared by:Domingo, Roxanne G.2011-015291
7/24/2019 Evidence Digested Cases
13/27
Sec/on 44, Rule 130
G.R. No. 11459 June 9, 2014
"Ovs.
7/24/2019 Evidence Digested Cases
14/27
7/24/2019 Evidence Digested Cases
15/27
Sec/on 42, Rule 130
G.R. No. 196735 appellants.
9 ; % I - I O 5
LEONEN,J.:
(ocr/ne- *s a general rule, M[a] witness can testify only to the facts he =nows of his personal=nowledgeG that is, which are derived from his own perception, .M *ll other =inds of
testimony are hearsay and are inadmissible as evidence. The $ules of %ourt, however, provideseveral eceptions to the general rule, and one of which is when the evidence is part of res
gestae, thusF
-ection 7". )art of res gestae. 4 -tatements made by a person while a starting occurrence is
ta=ing place or immediately prior or subse:uent thereto with respect to the circumstancesthereof, may be given in evidence as part of res gestae. -o, also, statements accompanying an
e:uivocal act material to the issue, and giving it a legal significance, may be received as part of
the res gestae.
In )eople v. $odrigo -alafranca, this court has previously discussed the admissibility of
testimony ta=en as part of res gestae, stating thatF
* declaration or an utterance is deemed as part of the res gestae and thus admissible in evidence
as an eception to the hearsay rule when the following re:uisites concur, to witF BaC the principal
act, the res gestae, is a startling occurrenceG BbC the statements are made before the declarant hadtime to contrive or deviseG and BcC the statements must concern the occurrence in :uestion and its
immediately attending circumstances.
%ac-
On 9ecember !, 6117, at around 6"F2# to 6F## in the afternoon, seven BEC members of the
-igma $ho fraternity were eating lunch at the ?each &ouse %anteen, near the ain 'ibrary ofthe enturina, died from his in0uries. The
victims who survived the attac= reported the incident to the 5?I four days after the same too=
place. *fter the filing of the criminal information for murder, the trial court convicted the
accused4appellants of the same. *fter an automatic review with the %ourt of *ppeals, the case
Prepared by:Domingo, Roxanne G.2011-015291
7/24/2019 Evidence Digested Cases
16/27
was elevated to the -upreme %ourt wherein one of the contentions of the accused4appellants in
order to obtain a reversal of the 0udgment is the fact that the testimonies of the
7/24/2019 Evidence Digested Cases
17/27
contemporaneous with the main fact as to eclude the idea of deliberation and
fabrication. The rule on res gestae encompasses the eclamations and statements made by
either the participants, victims, or spectators to a crime immediately before, during, orimmediately after the commission of the crime when the circumstances are such that the
statements were made as a spontaneous reaction or utterance inspired by the ecitement
of the occasion and there was no opportunity for the declarant to deliberate and tofabricate a false statement. The test of admissibility of evidence as a part of the res gestae
is, therefore, whether the act, declaration, or eclamation is so intimately interwoven or
connected with the principal fact or event that it characteriHes as to be regarded as a partof the transaction itself, and also whether it clearly negatives any premeditation or
purpose to manufacture testimony.
There is no doubt that a sudden attac= on a group peacefully eating lunch on a school
campus is a startling occurrence. %onsidering that the statements of the bystanders were madeimmediately after the startling occurrence, they are, in fact, admissible as evidence given in res
gestae.
In )eople v. *lbarido, however, this court has stated that Min accord to ordinary human
eperienceFM
persons who witness an event perceive the same from their respective points of reference.Therefore, almost always, they have different accounts of how it happened. %ertainly, we cannot
epect the testimony of witnesses to a crime to be consistent in all aspects because different
persons have different impressions and recollections of the same incident.
B;mphasis suppliedC
The statements made by the bystanders, although admissible, have little persuasive valuesince the bystanders could have seen the events transpiring at different vantage points and at
different points in time. ;ven risco %apilo, one of the bystanders at the time of the attac=,testified that the attac=ers had their mas=s on at first, but later on, some remained mas=ed and
some were unmas=ed.
3hen the bystandersJ testimonies are weighed against those of the victims who witnessed
the entirety of the incident from beginning to end at close range, the former become merelycorroborative of the fact that an attac= occurred. Their account of the incident, therefore, must be
given considerably less weight than that of the victims.
Prepared by:Domingo, Roxanne G.2011-015291
7/24/2019 Evidence Digested Cases
18/27
Sec/on 42, Rule 130
G.R. No. 19022 :r/l 7, 2014
&EO&LE O% $HE &H!L!&&!NES,)laintiff4*ppellee,
vs.SONNY G$R!N y "+LLERO FJY?RF an E(#R(O #!SYS, *ccused,
E(#R(O #!SYS,*ccused4*ppellant.
9 ; % I - I O 5
&ERL$,J.:
(ocr/ne- $es gestae refers to the circumstances, facts, and declarations that grow out of themain fact and serve to illustrate its character and are so spontaneous and contemporaneous with
the main fact as to eclude the idea of deliberation and fabrication. The test of admissibility ofevidence as a part of the res gestae is, therefore, whether the act, declaration, or eclamation, is
so interwoven or connected with the principal fact or event that it characteriHes as to be regardedas a part of the transaction itself, and also whether it clearly negates any premeditation or
purpose to manufacture testimony.
%ac-
On 5ovember 2, "##7 at ! o+cloc= in the evening,
7/24/2019 Evidence Digested Cases
19/27
Rul/n-
6. $e aeen ae 8y Januar/o o S&O3 erily, the =illing of (anuario, perpetrated by appellant, is ade:uately proven by
the prosecution.
". $e cr/e o ro88ery / o/c/e a care /n e /nora/on oul no 8eu:el. !nea, e cr/e o urer :ro:erly u/ e cae.
It is, therefore, clear from the foregoing that the evidence presented to prove the robberyaspect of the special comple crime of robbery with homicide, does not show that robbery
actually too= place. The prosecution did not convincingly establish the corpus delicti of the
crime of robbery.
In this case, the element of ta=ing, as well as the eistence of the money alleged tohave been lost and stolen by appellant, was not ade:uately established. 3e find no sufficient
evidence to show either the amount of money stolen, or if any amount was in fact stolen from
(anuario. ;ven if we consider (anuario+s dying declaration, the same pertains only to thestabbing incident and not to the alleged robbery.
rom the evidence presented, we find that as alleged in the information, abuse of superior
strength attended the commission of the crime, and thus, :ualifies the offense to murder.
*buse of superior strength is considered whenever there is a notorious ine:uality of forcesbetween the victim and the aggressor, assessing a superiority of strength notoriously
advantageous for the aggressor which the latter selected or too= advantage of in the
commission of the crime.
Prepared by:Domingo, Roxanne G.2011-015291
7/24/2019 Evidence Digested Cases
20/27
Sec/on 44, Rule 130
G.R. No. 201011 January 27, 2014
$HERES!$, J#N, S#N"!ON, &$RO"!N!, R!"R(O, an GLOR!, all
urnae (!
7/24/2019 Evidence Digested Cases
21/27
Rul/n-
*s to the hearsay rule, -ection 77 of $ule 62# of the $ules of %ourt similarly provides
that entries in official records are an eception to the rule. The rule provides that entries inofficial records made in the performance of the duty of a public officer of the )hilippines, or by a
person in the performance of a duty specially en0oined by law, are prima facie evidence of thefacts therein stated. The necessity of this rule consists in the inconvenience and difficulty of
re:uiring the officialJs attendance as a witness to testify to the innumerable transactions in thecourse of his duty. The documentJs trustworthiness consists in the presumption of regularity of
performance of official duty.
%adastral maps are the output of cadastral surveys. The 9;5$ is the department tas=edto eecute, supervise and manage the conduct of cadastral surveys. It is, therefore, clear that the
cadastral map and the corresponding list of claimants :ualify as entries in official records as they
were prepared by the 9;5$, as mandated by law. *s such, they are eceptions to the hearsay
rule and are prima facie evidence of the facts stated therein.
Prepared by:Domingo, Roxanne G.2011-015291
7/24/2019 Evidence Digested Cases
22/27
Sec/on 40?41, Rule 130
GR. No. 212924 July 29, 2015
&EO&LE O% $HE &H!L!&&!NES,Plaintiff-Appellee,
-versus-
ENR!#E GL)E=,Accused-Appellant.
(E"!S!ON
VILLARAMA, JR., J.:
(ocr/ne-*s to the age of the victim as a component of the :ualifying circumstance, the case of
People v. Flores laid down the following guidelines on how to prove the age of the offended
partyF
2. 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+smother or a member of the family either by affinity or consanguinity who is :ualified to
testify on matters respecting pedigree such as the eact age or date of birth of the
offended party pursuant to -ection 7#, $ule 62# of the $ules on ;vidence shall be
sufficient under the following circumstancesFa. If the victim is alleged to be below 2 years of age and what is sought to be
proved is that she is less that E years oldG
b. If the victim is alleged to be below E years of age and what is sought to beproved is that she is less than 6" years oldG
c. If the victim is alleged to be below 6" years of age and what is sought to be
proved is that she is less than 6! years old.
%ac-On four different dates, the accused4appellant had carnal =nowledge of the victim ***
who positively identified the former as her uncle and perpetrator of the crime. The $egional Trial
%ourt of Olongapo %ity convicted the accused of four counts of seual abuse under $* E@6# and
four counts of rape punishable under the $evised )enal %ode. The %ourt of *ppeals, uponappeal, affirmed with modifications the ruling of the trial court. The %* ruled that accused4
appellant can only be convicted of the crime of :ualified rape on the ground that he may not be
sub0ected to criminal liability twice for both seual abuse under -ec. 8BbC *rticle III, $* E@6#and rape under *rticle 228 of the $)% for the same act.
!ue- 3hether accused4appellant+s conviction of the crime of :ualified rape is proper.
Prepared by:Domingo, Roxanne G.2011-015291
7/24/2019 Evidence Digested Cases
23/27
Rul/n-No, accue?a::ellan oul only 8e con/ce o /:le ra:e 8ecaue e
Iual/y/n c/rcuance o e /c/ 8e/n 8elo 1 year o ae cou:le / e ac ae oener / a rela/e o a/ /c/ a no 8een ully ea8l/e.
3ith respect to the element that ma=es the offense :ualified rape, that is, the minority ofthe victim coupled with the fact that the accused is related to her within the third civil degree, it
bears stressing that both minority and the third degree relationship must be established.
*s to the age of the victim as a component of the :ualifying circumstance, the case of
People v. Floreslaid down the following guidelines on how to prove the age of the offended
partyF
6. 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.". 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.2. 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 :ualified to testify on mattersrespecting pedigree such as the eact age or date of birth of the offended party pursuant to
-ection 7#, $ule 62# of the $ules on ;vidence shall be sufficient under the following
circumstancesF
a. If the victim is alleged to be below 2 years of age and what is sought to beproved is that she is less than E years oldG
b. If the victim is alleged to be below E years of age and what is sought to be
proved is that she is less than 6" years oldGc. If the victim is alleged to be below 6" years of age and what is sought to be
proved is that she is less than 6! years old.
7. 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 epressly and clearly admitted by the accused.8. It is the prosecution that has the burden of proving the age of the offended party. The
failure of the accused to ob0ect to the testimonial evidence regarding age shall not be ta=en
against him.
InPeople v. Ortega, we eplained how to resolve this doubt in the victim+s ageF
Niven the doubt as to ***+s eact age, the $T% properly convictedOrtega only of simple rape punishable by reclusion perpetua.
InPeople v. Alvarado, we did not apply the death penalty becausethe victim+s age was not satisfactorily established, thusF
Prepared by:Domingo, Roxanne G.2011-015291
7/24/2019 Evidence Digested Cases
24/27
3e agree, however, that accused4appellant should not
have been meted the death penalty on the ground that the
age of complainant was not proven beyond reasonabledoubt. The information alleged that, on (uly "@, 611E, the
date of the rape, *rlene was 67 years old. In her testimony,
*rlene stated that she was 67 years old at the time of theincident. *ccused4appellant confirmed this during the
presentation of the defense evidence, but 'onelisa
*lvarado, complainant+s mother, testified that *rlene wasborn on 5ovember "2, 61!2, which would mean she was
only 62 years old on the date of the commission of the
crime. 5o other evidence was ever presented, such as her
certificate of live birth or any other document, to prove*rlene+s eact age at the time of the crime. /nor/y /a Iual/y/n c/rcuance, / u 8e :roe / eIualcera/ny an clearne a e cr/e /el. $ere u
8e /ne:enen e/ence :ro/n e ae o e /c/,oer an e e/on/e o e :roecu/on /neean e a8ence o en/al 8y accue?a::ellan. S/nceere / ou8 a o rlene eAac ae, accuea::ellan u 8e el u/ly o /:le ra:e only anenence o reclusion perpetua.
It must li=ewise be remembered that the minority of the victim must concur with thesecond component which is the third degree relationship between the victim and the offender. *s
to such second component of the :ualifying circumstance,People v. ibo-onteachesF
It is well4settled that this attendant circumstance, as well as the other
circumstances /nrouce 8y Re:u8l/c c No. 7659 and !712 are in the natureof :ualifying circumstances. These attendant circumstances are not ordinaryaggravating circumstances which merely increase the period of the penalty.
$ather, these are special :ualifying circumstances which u 8e :ec//cally:leae or allee / cera/ny /n e /nora/onG otherwise, the deathpenalty cannot be imposed. In this regard, we have previously held that if theoffender is merely a relation not a parent, ascendant, step4parent, or guardian or
common4law spouse of the mother of the victim it must be alleged in the
information that he is a relative by consanguinity or affinity Bas the case may beCwithin the third civil degree.
Thus, in the instant case, e allea/on a accue?a::ellan / e uncle o :r/aeco:la/nan / no :ec//c enou o a/y e :ec/al Iual/y/n c/rcuance orela/on/:. The relationship by consanguinity or affinity between appellant and complainant
Prepared by:Domingo, Roxanne G.2011-015291
7/24/2019 Evidence Digested Cases
25/27
was not alleged in the information in this case. ;ven if it were so alleged, / a /ll necearyo :ec//cally allee a uc rela/on/: a //n e /r c//l eree.B%itations omittedG emphasis and underscoring suppliedC
-ince the Informations contained only a statement that the accused appellant was the
uncle of *** without stating that they were relatives within the third civil degree, the :ualifyingcircumstance of relationship cannot li=ewise be appreciated in the case at bar.
Prepared by:Domingo, Roxanne G.2011-015291
7/24/2019 Evidence Digested Cases
26/27
7/24/2019 Evidence Digested Cases
27/27