FACTS:

On January 3, 1995, 3-year-old Lizette Gonzales was allegedly raped by the accused, Manuel Pruna. Lizette's mother testified that she found her daughter crying and frightened after she was sexually molested. Lizette identified Pruna as the perpetrator. A physical examination on Lizette revealed indications of possible insertion of a hard object and the presence of sperm cells. The prosecution presented five witnesses to support the allegations. Pruna's counsel requested a psychiatric examination for him. The trial court ordered Pruna to undergo examination at the National Center for Mental Health (NCMH), which recommended his return to jail.

The defense presented Carlito Bondoc who claimed he was with Pruna at his house during the alleged rape and that Pruna could not have committed the crime. Pruna denied the allegations and stated that he was falsely accused and physically abused by the police.

After the trial, Pruna was convicted of rape and sentenced to death. He appealed, challenging the competency and credibility of Lizette as a witness, the admissibility of Jacqueline's testimony as hearsay, the failure of the prosecution to present another witness, the sufficiency of the evidence, and the application of the qualifying circumstance of minority.

The issues to be resolved are: (1) Lizette's competency and credibility as a witness; (2) the admissibility of Jacqueline's testimony as hearsay; (3) the impact of the failure to present another witness; (4) the sufficiency of the evidence; and (5) the proof of the qualifying circumstance of minority for the imposition of the death penalty.

The appellant questions the competence of Lizette as a witness due to her young age. The defense counsel attempted to file a motion to strike out Lizette's testimony, but no such motion is found on the record. Lizette testified about seeing her mother passing by while she was in a grassy area. The defense counsel questioned Lizette about the distance to their house and how long it took her to discharge her bowel. However, Lizette's competency is determined by her ability to perceive and relate the facts truthfully. The trial court admitted and valued Lizette's testimony, considering the credibility of a young rape victim and the absence of any motive for false testimony. The appellant's argument that Lizette's testimony is hearsay is rejected, as the hearsay rule is not applicable when the declarant testifies.

The issue in this case concerns the admissibility of hearsay evidence. The court rules that hearsay evidence is inadmissible as it is not based on the personal knowledge of the witness nor subject to cross-examination. However, in this instance, the declarant, Jacqueline, was sworn as a witness and was cross-examined. The trial court also had the opportunity to observe her manner of testifying. Thus, Jacqueline's testimony regarding the incident related by her daughter cannot be disregarded as hearsay evidence.

ISSUES:

1. Whether the testimony of Jacqueline Gonzales regarding what the victim told her constitutes hearsay evidence.

2. Whether the non-presentation of Gloria Tolentino as a witness is fatal to the prosecution's case.

3. Whether the prosecution's evidence is sufficient to establish the guilt of the appellant.

4. Whether the prosecution sufficiently proved the commission of rape.

5. Whether the defense of alibi raised by the accused should be disregarded.

6. Whether the motive imputed by the defense is valid.

7. Whether the victim's minority was sufficiently proved.

8. Whether the failure of the accused to deny the victim's age allegation can make up for the prosecution's failure to provide evidence of the victim's minority.

9. Whether the victim's casual testimony as to her age is sufficient proof of her age.

10. Whether the age of the victim is a matter of judicial notice.

11. Whether the declaration of the victim as to her age is admissible and can be given weight.

12. Whether the absence of the victim's birth certificate or other documentary evidence can exonerate the prosecution from its burden.

13. Whether the testimony of the victim's mother regarding the victim's age is sufficient to establish minority.

14. Whether the lack of corroborative evidence such as a birth certificate or baptismal certificate affects the appreciation of the qualifying circumstance of "below seven (7) years old".

15. Whether or not the age qualification for the crime of rape was sufficiently proven by the prosecution.

16. Whether or not the accused can be convicted of qualified rape and be sentenced to death.

17. Whether or not the accused should be held liable for statutory rape instead of qualified rape.

18. Whether or not the civil liability of the accused is sufficient.

RULING:

1. The testimony of Jacqueline Gonzales regarding what the victim told her does not constitute hearsay evidence since the victim herself was sworn as a witness and was cross-examined by the appellant. Additionally, the trial court had the opportunity to observe the victim's demeanor while testifying. Even if it is considered hearsay, its non-admission would not affect the case since the victim's own testimony is sufficient to support the conviction.

2. The non-presentation of Gloria Tolentino as a witness is not fatal to the prosecution's case. It is undisputed that Gloria had already moved out of her residence and could not be found at the time of the trial. Furthermore, her intended testimony would only be corroborative of the victim's testimony and is not necessary to establish the appellant's guilt.

3. The prosecution's evidence is sufficient to establish the guilt of the appellant. The victim positively identified the appellant as the one who raped her, and her testimony was found to be credible by the trial court. The victim's mother also testified that the victim immediately disclosed the incident to her and identified the appellant as the perpetrator. The medical evidence further supports the victim's claim of rape.

4. Yes, the prosecution sufficiently proved the commission of rape based on the spontaneous identification of the accused by the victim, her immediate revelation to her mother, her submission to medical examination, and the presence of physical evidence.

5. The defense of alibi raised by the accused should be disregarded as the location of the rape was close enough to the accused's house, making it physically possible for him to be at the crime scene.

6. The defense's imputed motive is invalid as it is unsupported and too flimsy to be considered. It is unlikely that a mother would subject her child to a prosecution for rape unless she truly believed in the guilt of the accused.

7. The victim's minority must be proved with equal certainty and clearness as the crime itself, and the failure to sufficiently establish her age bars conviction for rape in its qualified form. The presentation of a birth certificate is not always required, but in the absence of such document, independent proof of the victim's actual age is vital and essential to remove any doubt.

8. The failure of the accused to deny the victim's age allegation cannot compensate for the prosecution's failure to provide definite evidence of the victim's minority. Without clear proof of the victim's age, the qualifying circumstance of minority cannot be considered.

9. The victim's casual testimony as to her age is not sufficient proof of her age. The prosecution is required to present competent evidence, such as a birth certificate or other authentic documentary evidence, to establish the age of the victim.

10. The age of the victim is not a matter of judicial notice, whether mandatory or discretionary. Judicial notice cannot be taken of the age of the victim without a hearing.

11. While the declaration of the victim as to her age is admissible as an exception to the hearsay rule, its weight and credibility are another matter. The prosecution should present additional evidence, such as a birth certificate or other documentary evidence, to support the victim's declaration.

12. The absence of the victim's birth certificate or other documentary evidence does not excuse the prosecution from proving the victim's age. The prosecution should present competent evidence to establish the age of the victim. The lack of contrary assertion from the defense or the obvious minority of the victim is not sufficient to meet the burden of proof.

13. The testimony of the victim's mother regarding the victim's age is not sufficient to establish minority. Testimonial evidence must be clear and credible, and the witness must be qualified to testify on matters respecting pedigree such as the exact age or date of birth of the offended party. The mother's testimony alone is not enough to establish the victim's age with certainty.

14. The lack of corroborative evidence such as a birth certificate or baptismal certificate affects the appreciation of the qualifying circumstance of "below seven (7) years old". Corroborative evidence should be introduced in order to establish the victim's exact age.

15. The lack of objection from the defense regarding the age of the victim does not excuse the prosecution from proving her age. The defense's questioning of the victim's competency to testify is not an admission of her being below 7 years old. Therefore, the prosecution failed to prove the age qualification for rape.

16. The accused cannot be convicted of qualified rape due to the absence of evidence proving the victim's age. Consequently, the death penalty cannot be imposed on the accused.

17. The testimony of the victim's mother stating that she was 3 years old at the time of the crime is sufficient to hold the accused liable for statutory rape. The penalty imposed should be reclusion perpetua, not the death penalty.

18. The trial court's award of indemnity in the amount of P50,000 is not sufficient. The victim is also entitled to a moral damages award of P50,000 due to the obvious mental, physical, and psychological trauma she has suffered.

PRINCIPLES:

• Hearsay evidence is evidence that is not based on the personal knowledge of the witness and therefore does not depend on the credibility of the actual declarant. It is generally inadmissible because the party against whom it is presented is deprived of the opportunity to cross-examine the declarant.

• The non-presentation of a witness is not fatal to the prosecution's case if the witness is unavailable and their intended testimony would only be corroborative of other evidence.

• In a rape case, the testimony of the victim, if found to be credible, is sufficient to establish the guilt of the accused. The court does not expect the victim to remember all the details of the crime, and her identification of the perpetrator is crucial evidence.

• The absence of fresh lacerations does not preclude a finding of rape, especially when the victim is of tender age. Rape can be consummated even with the slightest penetration of the female genitalia. Medical evidence such as hyperemia and the presence of sperm cells can support the victim's claim of rape.

• The positive declaration of the victim can prevail over weak defenses such as denial and alibi, especially when the defense lacks clear and convincing evidence.

• Motive imputed by the defense should be scrutinized and must have sufficient basis to be considered valid.

• The victim's minority must be proved with certainty, and the lack of a birth certificate requires independent proof of the victim's actual age.

• The failure of the accused to deny the victim's age allegation cannot substitute for the prosecution's failure to provide evidence of the victim's minority.

• Casual testimony as to the victim's age is not sufficient proof. The prosecution should present competent evidence, such as a birth certificate or other authentic documentary evidence.

• Age of the victim is not a matter of judicial notice. Judicial notice of the victim's age can only be taken after a hearing.

• Declaration of the victim as to her age is admissible but its weight and credibility may require additional evidence.

• Absence of birth certificate or documentary evidence does not excuse the prosecution from proving the victim's age. Additional evidence is required to establish the age of the victim.

• 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.

• 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 shall be sufficient under certain circumstances.

• 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.

• It is the prosecution that has the burden of proving the age of the offended party.

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

• The lack of objection from the defense regarding a crucial element of the crime does not relieve the prosecution from proving such element.

• The age qualification for rape must be proven beyond reasonable doubt by the prosecution.

• In the absence of evidence proving the age qualification for rape, the accused cannot be convicted of qualified rape.

• A person committing rape against a girl below 12 years old is liable for statutory rape.

• The penalty for statutory rape under the second paragraph of Article 335, as amended by R.A. No. 7659, is reclusion perpetua.

• The victim of statutory rape is entitled to indemnity and moral damages based on recent jurisprudence.