TIJING V.

COURT OF APPEALS
G.R. No. 125901. March 8, 2001
354 SCRA 17
FACTS:
Petitioner Beinvenida is the mother of one Edgardo Tijing,
Jr., whom she delivered at the clinic of midwife and
registered nurse Lourdes Vasques in April 27, 1989, which
the same has registered in the local civil registry.
According to Beinvenida, who is the laundrywoman of
respondent Angelita, in August 1989, Angelita fetched her
for an urgent laundry job. As Beinvenida is in a hurry for a
trip to the market, she asked Angelita to wait until she
returns. Angelita was left with Beinvenidas son Edgardo
Tijing Jr. Upon Beinvenidas return from the market,
Angelita and Edgardo Jr. were gone. Thereafter, Angelita
moved out of their house. She and Edgardo Jr. were
nowhere to be found.
Four years later, Beinvenida was able to track Angelita and
there she saw a boy named John Thomas Lopez resembling
his son Edgardo Jr. Beinvenida demanded Angelita to return
the boy but Angelita failed to do so. So, Beinvinida and her
husband filed a petition for habeas corpus with the trial
court. The RTC finding that Angelita and her common-law
husband could not have children, it granted the petition.
Angelita filed an appeal, wherein the CA reversed the RTCs
decision on the ground that Beinvenida has not adduced
sufficient evidence to establish that she is the mother of the
minor. A motion for reconsideration was denied. Hence,
Beinvenida filed a petition with the SC.
ISSUE:
W/N Edgardo Tijing, Jr. and John Thomas Lopez are one and
the same person.
HELD:
In this case, the minors identity is crucial in determining
the propriety of the writ sought. Thus, it must be resolved
first whether the Edgardo Tijing, Jr., claimed by Bienvenida
to be her son, is the same minor named John Thomas Lopez,
whom Angelita insists to be her offspring.

Under the law, the attending physician or midwife in

attendance at birth should cause the registration of such
birth, and only in default of the physician or midwife can the
parent register the birth of his child. Moreover, a false entry
in a birth certificate regarding the alleged marriage
between the parents of the child puts to doubt the other
data in said birth certificate. Significantly, the birth
certificate of the child stated Tomas Lopez and private
respondent were legally married on October 31, 1974, in
Hagonoy, Bulacan, which is false because even private
respondent had admitted she is a commonlaw wife. This
false entry puts to doubt the other data in said birth
certificate.
In the case, the SC finds also unusual the fact that the birth
certificate of John Thomas Lopez was filed by the father
Tomas Lopez instead of the midwife and on August 4, 1989,
four months after the alleged birth of the child.
The trial court observed several times that when the child
and Bienvenida were both in court, the two had strong
similarities in their faces, eyes, eyebrows and head shapes.
Resemblance between a minor and his alleged parent is
competent and material evidence to establish parentage.
Needless to stress, the trial courts conclusion should be
given high respect, it having had the opportunity to observe
the physical appearances of the minor and petitioner
concerned.
Therefore, considering all the foregoing, the court ruled
that the minor is the same person as the son of Beinvenida.
Habeas corpus is proper to regain their custody of their son.

PEOPLE V. RULLEPA
G.R. No. 131516. March 5, 2003.
398 SCRA 567
FACTS:
Rullepa was charged with rape before the RTC. Witnesses
presented by the prosecution included the victim, Cyra May,
her mother Gloria, Dr. Preyra and SP04 Borda.
Cyra May, as testified by her mother, is three years old
during the commission of the alleged offense.
The RTC, from testimonies of the victim, the mother and
corroborated by results of medical examination on the
victim found Rullepa guilty beyond reasonable doubt for the
crime of rape and was sentenced to death. Hence, an
automatic review by the Supreme Court. The accusedappellant, assigned the error, amongst others, that the RTC
erred in imposing the supreme penalty of death.
ISSUE:
What are the guidelines in appreciating age as an element
of the crime or as a qualifying circumstance for penalty of
death?
HELD:

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.
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.
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
victims 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.
4. In the absence of a certificate of live birth, authentic
document, or the testimony of the victims mother or
relatives
concerning
the
victims
age,
the
complainants testimony will suffice provided that it is
expressly and clearly admitted by the accused.
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.
6. The trial court should always make a categorical
finding as to the age of the victim.
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 ones physical appearance.
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 victims 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.
As to whether Cyra May is below seven years at the time of
the rape, in order for accused to suffer penalty of death, the
alleged age approaches the age sought to be proved, the
persons appearance, as object evidence of her age, loses
probative value. Such doubt must be resolved in favor
of the accused. This is because in the era of modernism
and rapid growth, the victims 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 victims age in the present case spells the
difference between life and death.

ABALOS V. COURT OF APPEALS

G.R. No. 125434. December 22, 1999.
321 SCRA 446
FACTS:
On January 27, 1993, Delfin Abalos allegedly shot and killed
Liberato Damias while the latter and his girlfriend Veronica
Bulatao were sitting in front of Veronicas house.

On trial, Veronica testified that Delfin pursued in courting

her but she rejected him and chose Liberato instead. She
testified that before the shooting, she saw Delfin already
walking back and forth near their house where Liberato is
visiting Veronica. Veronica positively identified petitioner
Delfin as he scurried away after shooting Liberato since the
sala of her house was adequately lit by a kerosene lamp and
he was only one (1) meter away from them when he pulled
the trigger. Delfin denied the allegation and stated that at
the night of the shooting, he was with his father and some
other workers in the tobacco fields. This was corroborated
by the testimonies of his alleged companions. Inocencio,
Veronicas father, however rebutted Delfins claim.
Inocencio testified that Delfin was in fact in their house
watching TV before the shooting.
The RTC found Delfin guilty of murder. On appeal, the CA
set aside the conviction for murder and instead found Delfin
guilty of homicide.
Petitioner now argues that the testimony of the lone
witness, Veronica Bulatao, was not credible that the Court
of Appeals erred in considering his three (3) prior
convictions as basis for finding him guilty of homicide and,
his guilt was not proved beyond reasonable doubt.
ISSUE:
W/N the testimony of Veronica is sufficient to justify a
conviction.
HELD:
YES.
The credibility of witnesses is a matter best assessed by the
trial court because of its unique opportunity to observe the
witnesses firsthand and to note their demeanor, conduct
and attitude.the court has consistently reiterated that the
credibility of witnesses is a matter best assessed by the trial
court because of its unique opportunity to observe the
witnesses firsthand and to note their demeanor, conduct
and attitude. Thus, unless certain facts of substance and
value have been overlooked, which if considered might
affect the result of the

case, the trial courts appraisal of the credibility of a

witness should not be overturned. The trial court ruled that
Veronica testified in a clear, straightforward and flawless
manner. The court see no cogent reason to deviate from that
observation.
Further, alibi cannot prevail over the positive identification
of the accused by a credible witness who had no ill motive
to falsely testify.It has been long established that alibi
cannot prevail over the positive identification of the accused
by a credible witness who had no ill motive to falsely testify.
The absence of ill motive on Veronicas part was even
substantiated by petitioner in his testimony.
For alibi to prosper, the accused must not only prove that he
was not at the crime scene but that it was also physically
impossible for him to have been present there at the time
the offense was committed.For alibi to prosper, petitioner
must not only prove that he was not at the crime scene but
that it was also physically impossible for him to have been
present there at the time the offense was committed. He
miserably failed to satisfy the second requisite. Delfin
himself testified that the distance between the tobacco
fields to Veronicas house was only around 400 meters and
it only took eight (8) minutes to traverse such path.
Evidently, it was not impossible for Delfin to be present at
the locus criminis.