FACTS:

Accused-appellant Ronnie Rullepa was charged with rape before the RTC of Quezon City based on the complaint of Cyra May Francisco Buenafe. The alleged rape incident occurred on November 17, 1995, when Rullepa forcefully and unlawfully removed Cyra May's panty, kissed her lips and vagina, and inserted his penis into her vagina without her consent. Accused-appellant pleaded not guilty during his arraignment. The prosecution presented witnesses including Cyra May, her mother Gloria Francisco Buenafe, Dr. Cristina V. Preyra, and SPO4 Catherine Borda. Cyra May, then three and a half years old, narrated the incident to her mother. Accused-appellant, who was the Buenafes' house boy, admitted to the actions but claimed that it only happened once. The prosecution also presented medical evidence from Dr. Preyra, who found abraded labia minora and an intact hymen in Cyra May's examination. Accused-appellant was found guilty of rape by the RTC and sentenced to death, with an order to pay civil indemnity to the victim.

The accused-appellant was charged with the crime of rape committed against his younger sister, Cyra May. During the trial, the mother testified that the accused-appellant admitted to sexually assaulting Cyra May and even specified the time when it happened. The accused-appellant did not deny the admission during trial, which the trial court considered as conclusive against him. Cyra May described in detail the abuse she suffered at the hands of the accused-appellant. She testified that the accused-appellant inserted his penis into her vagina, anus, and mouth, causing her pain and making her cry. She also mentioned that the accused-appellant told her not to make any noise so as not to wake their mother. The accused-appellant raised the defense that the admission attributed to him was made out of fear after being questioned by Cyra May's parents. He argued that his failure to deny the admission during trial should not be taken as an admission of guilt. The trial court, however, considered the admission as an additional ground to establish the accused-appellant's guilt. It found that even without the admission, the evidence was sufficient to prove his guilt beyond reasonable doubt. The court highlighted Cyra May's straightforward and detailed testimony, which strongly supported her accusations.

The accused-appellant also focused on a discrepancy in Cyra May's testimony regarding the presence of her father and the accused-appellant in the house on the day of the incident. However, the court explained that her testimony did not preclude the accused-appellant's commission of rape on that date. The court further noted that young children, like Cyra May, can be susceptible to suggestion. Overall, the trial court found the accused-appellant guilty of rape and imposed the penalty of death upon him. The accused-appellant appealed the decision, raising several errors, including the admissibility of his admission and his alleged implied admission of guilt through his silence during trial.

The case involves the rape of a minor named Cyra May, who testified that the accused-appellant inserted his penis into her vagina. The accused-appellant argues that Cyra May was coached and that she might have imagined the incident or gotten the idea from television programs. However, the court finds this suggestion preposterous and believes that Cyra May's account is credible. Her testimony is supported by the medical findings of abrasions in her labia minora, which could have been caused by friction with an erect penis. The court also notes that Cyra May's age and demeanor during the trial further enhance her credibility as a witness. The accused-appellant's claim that Cyra May suffered pain in urinating prior to the incident is ruled out by the medical expert, who states that the sensitive nature of the female organ makes self-infliction of the abrasions unlikely. The court also concludes that the absence of external signs of trauma does not negate the conviction for statutory rape, as the use of force is immaterial in such cases. Lastly, the court dismisses the accused-appellant's imputation of ill motive on the part of the victim's mother, stating that no mother would subject her child to the humiliation of a rape prosecution if not motivated solely by the desire for justice. The accused-appellant alternatively argues for a conviction of acts of lasciviousness instead of rape based on the testimony that he merely "scrubbed" his penis against the victim's vagina. However, the medical findings of abrasions contradict this claim.

ISSUES:

1. Whether the infliction of force is immaterial in statutory rape.

2. Whether the abrasions found in the victim's genitalia proves penetration.

3. Whether the victim's age has been proven beyond reasonable doubt.

4. Whether the lack of corroborative evidence, such as a birth certificate or baptismal certificate, to establish the victim's age is fatal to the conviction of the accused for qualified rape.

5. Whether the court can take judicial notice of the appearance of the victim to determine her age.

6. Whether the appearance of a person can be considered as evidence of their age.

7. Whether the trial court properly considered the appearance of the defendant in determining his age.

8. Whether the testimony of the victim's mother regarding the age of the victim is sufficient to prove the age requirement in a statutory rape case.

9. Whether the accused can be sentenced to death if the victim's age cannot be proved beyond reasonable doubt.

RULING:

1. The infliction of force is immaterial in statutory rape. The fact 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 the accused's conviction for statutory rape.

2. The abrasions found in the victim's genitalia prove penetration. Despite the victim's testimony that the accused-appellant merely "scrubbed" his penis against her vagina, the presence of abrasions in the labia minora proves that there was indeed penetration.

3. The victim's age has been proven beyond reasonable doubt. The absence of a birth certificate or similar authentic documents does not bar the prosecution from proving the victim's age. In the absence of such documents, the testimony of the victim's mother or a member of the family who is qualified to testify on matters respecting pedigree can be sufficient. In the present case, the complainant's testimony, if clear and credible, suffices to establish the victim's age.

4. The lack of corroborative evidence, such as a birth certificate or baptismal certificate, to establish the victim's age does not necessarily result in the acquittal of the accused. In this case, the testimony of the victim's mother that the victim was three years old at the time of the commission of the crime is sufficient to hold the accused liable for statutory rape, or rape of a girl below 12 years of age. The penalty imposed is reclusion perpetua instead of the death penalty.

5. While the court can take judicial notice of the appearance of the victim to determine her age, this process cannot be categorically considered as judicial notice. Judicial notice is based on convenience and expediency and only applies to facts that are already known to courts. In this case, the court's observation of the victim's appearance to determine her age is considered as an examination of evidence, specifically the appearance of the person, which is admissible as object evidence under Section 1, Rule 130 of the Rules of Court. This process is not a form of judicial notice as it requires the presentation of evidence.

6. Yes, the appearance of a person can be considered as evidence of their age. In determining a person's age, the tribunal may observe the person brought before it as corporal appearances are usually an index of the age of their bearer, particularly for the extremes of old age and youth. The outward physical appearance of an alleged minor may be considered in judging his age. 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.

7. Yes, the trial court properly considered the appearance of the defendant in determining his age. In this case, the trial court determined that the defendant's appearance indicated that he was a youth of 18 or 19 years old, which was different from the defendant's claim that he was 17 years old. In accordance with previous jurisprudence, any doubt regarding the defendant's age should be resolved in favor of the defendant. Therefore, the trial court properly considered the appearance of the defendant in determining his age.

8. The testimony of the victim's mother regarding the age of the victim is insufficient to prove her age in a statutory rape case. The appearance of the victim, as object evidence, also cannot be given much weight.

9. The accused cannot be sentenced to death if the victim's age cannot be proved beyond reasonable doubt. Only the penalty of reclusion perpetua can be imposed.

PRINCIPLES:

• The infliction of force is immaterial in statutory rape.

• The presence of abrasions in the genitalia is proof of penetration.

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

• In the absence of a birth certificate or similar authentic documents, the testimony of the victim's mother or a member of the family can suffice to prove the victim's age.

• The failure of the accused to object to testimonial evidence regarding age shall not be taken against him.

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

• In cases where the exact age of the victim is crucial, corroborative evidence such as a birth certificate or baptismal certificate should be introduced to establish the qualifying circumstance of age.

• The lack of objection on the part of the defense regarding the victim's age does not excuse the prosecution from discharging its burden of proving the victim's age.

• Courts may take judicial notice of the appearance of the victim to determine her age, however, this process is not considered as judicial notice but as an examination of evidence.

• The appearance of a person can be admissible as object evidence, addressed to the senses of the court, and can be considered in determining the person's age.

• The appearance of a person can be considered as evidence of their age.

• Any doubt regarding a person's age should be resolved in favor of the defendant.

• The appearance of the victim, as object evidence, loses probative value as the alleged age approaches the age sought to be proved. Doubt as to the victim's true age must be resolved in favor of the accused.

• The minority of the victim should be alleged and proved with equal certainty and clearness as the crime itself.

• Proof beyond reasonable doubt of every fact necessary to constitute the crime, including the age of the victim, must be substantiated for the extreme penalty of death to be upheld.

• The testimony of the victim's mother regarding the age of the victim, by itself, is insufficient to prove the age requirement in a statutory rape case.