FACTS:

This case involves the rape of a minor, X X X X, by the accused, Bobby Orense. The victim, a seven-year-old girl, testified that on March 2, 1997, while she was at home and her mother was away, Orense forcibly undressed her, inserted his finger into her private parts, and threatened to kill her if she told anyone about it. After the incident, she experienced pain and reported it to her mother when she came home. X X X X's mother immediately took her to the hospital for medical examination. Dr. Sergio Suguitan, the attending physician, noted the presence of a healed laceration in the victim's private area, which could have been caused by the insertion of a blunt object.

Dr. Olga Bausa, a Medico-Legal Officer, conducted a biochemical examination on blood samples taken from X X X X and compared it to bloodstains found on a shirt belonging to the appellant. The examination showed that both the samples and the shirt contained blood type "B." Dr. Norieta Calma-Balderama, a psychiatrist, examined X X X X and observed that the child repeatedly mentioned words related to the abuse during their interview, indicating that she was telling the truth.

The defense presented appellant Bobby Orense's version. He claimed that on the day of the incident, he was at his father's house in Blumentritt, Manila, meeting a friend in the morning to renew his security guard license. He went to the National Bureau of Investigation in the afternoon to secure a clearance and then went to Camp Crame to renew his license as a security guard. When he returned home in the evening, he found his clothes in the trash, allegedly thrown by his wife in anger. He denied raping X X X X and argued that his wife treated him poorly, leading him to stay with his father for a month prior to the incident.

The trial court found Bobby Orense guilty of statutory rape and sentenced him to death. In this appeal, the appellant questions the credibility of the victim and argues that the prosecution failed to prove his guilt beyond reasonable doubt.

In the trial of the case, the prosecution argued that the victim, despite being only seven years old, is a competent witness because competency is determined by the child's intelligence and ability to perceive and communicate facts accurately, rather than by a definite minimum age. The court agreed with the prosecution, stating that a child can be considered a competent witness if they can perceive the facts, understand the process and importance of taking an oath, and truthfully relate those facts to the court. The court emphasized that the competence of a child witness is determined by their capacity at the time the relevant event occurred, their comprehension of the obligations of an oath, and their ability to recount the facts accurately.

ISSUES:

1. Whether the child witness is competent to testify.

2. Whether the testimony of the child witness is credible.

3. Whether the appellant is guilty of rape?

4. Whether the defense of denial and alibi of the appellant is credible?

5. Whether the prosecution has sufficiently proven the age of the victim to warrant the imposition of the death penalty.

RULING:

1. The court held that the child witness is competent to testify. The competency of a child witness is determined by their capacity to perceive and comprehend the facts they are testifying to, to understand the obligation of an oath, and to relate those facts truthfully. The court found that the child witness in this case was able to answer questions and demonstrate understanding of the wrongness of lying and the punishment that may result from false swearing. The question of competency of a child witness is within the sound discretion of the trial court.

2. The court found the testimony of the child witness to be credible. Although her narration might lack vividness, she was able to sufficiently describe the sexual assault that occurred. The court also noted that her testimony was consistent with the allegations in the complaint.

3. The appellant is guilty of rape. The court found the testimony of the victim to be credible and consistent. The medical report presented by the prosecution corroborated the victim's testimony, showing signs of abuse and hymenal lacerations. The absence of physical violence does not negate the occurrence of rape, as external injuries are not indispensable in a rape case. The appellant took advantage of his moral ascendancy over his defenseless daughter.

4. The defense of denial and alibi of the appellant is not credible. Denial is an inherently weak defense and should be supported by strong evidence of non-culpability. The appellant failed to provide such evidence. Alibi can only prosper if the accused can prove that it was impossible for him to be at the crime scene at the time of the commission of the crime, which the appellant also failed to establish.

5. The prosecution failed to satisfy the guidelines set forth in People v. Pruna to prove the age of the victim. Therefore, the imposition of the death penalty is not warranted.

PRINCIPLES:

• The intelligence, not the age, of a young child is the test of their competency as a witness.

• A child witness can be competent if they can perceive the facts, comprehend the obligation of an oath, and relate the facts truthfully.

• The question of competency of a child witness rests primarily in the sound discretion of the trial court.

• The finding of the trial judge regarding the competency of a child witness will not be disturbed unless it is clear from the record that the finding was erroneous.

• The credibility of a witness is a matter best determined by the trial court, which has the opportunity to observe the witness' demeanor and manner of testifying.

• Credibility of witnesses – The court gives weight to the testimonies of witnesses who are found to be credible and consistent in their accounts.

• Corroboration – Corroboration from other evidence, such as medical reports, can strengthen the credibility of a witness's testimony.

• Absence of physical violence – Lack of physical violence does not negate the occurrence of rape, as there are other factors to consider in determining its commission.

• Denial and alibi – Denial and alibi are weak defenses and must be supported by strong evidence of non-culpability to be credible.

• The best evidence to prove the age of the victim is an original or certified true copy of the certificate of live birth.

• 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.

• If the certificate of live birth or authentic document is unavailable, the testimony of the victim's mother or a qualified relative may be sufficient.

• In the absence of a certificate of live birth, authentic document, or the testimony of the victim's mother or relatives, the complainant's testimony can suffice if expressly and clearly admitted by the accused.

• The prosecution has the burden of proving the age of the victim.

• The trial court should always make a categorical finding as to the age of the victim.

• Civil indemnity, moral damages, and exemplary damages are awarded in cases of rape.