Premium Content

You accessing premium content on FREE trial.

PEOPLE v. MANUEL PRUNA Y RAMIREZ OR ERMAN PRUNA Y RAMIREZ

This case has been cited 38 times or more.

2016-02-01
PERALTA, J.
The term "hearsay" as used in the law on evidence, signifies evidence which is not founded upon the personal knowledge of the witness from whom it is elicited and which consequently does not depend wholly for its credibility and weight upon the confidence which the court may have in him; its value, if any, is measured by the credit to be given to some third person not sworn as a witness to that fact, and consequently, not subject to cross-examination.[31] If one therefore testifies to facts which he learned from a third person not sworn as a witness to those facts, his testimony is inadmissible as hearsay evidence.
2015-02-25
BERSAMIN, J.
People v. Pruna[32] states the controlling guidelines in evaluating evidence presented to prove a rape victim's minority, to wit: xxx [W]e hereby set the following guidelines in appreciating age, either as an element of the crime or as a qualifying circumstance.
2013-12-11
LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, J.
We likewise find baseless accused-appellant's contention that the rape charge was filed against him at his wife BBB's instigation so that BBB could carry on her purported illicit relation with a paramour.  We are not convinced that there existed such resentment and ill will on the part of AAA and her mother against accused-appellant prior to the rape.  Granting that there was already bad blood between accused-appellant and BBB, it is unfathomable for BBB, as AAA's mother, to concoct a story too damaging to the welfare and well-being of her own daughter.  Certainly, it is inconceivable that a mother would draw her young daughter into a rape scam with all its attendant scandal and humiliation just because of a supposed feud with the father.  No mother in her right mind would use her offspring as an engine of malice.  She would not subject her child to the humiliation, disgrace, and even the stigma attendant to the prosecution for rape unless she is motivated by the desire to bring to justice the person responsible for her child's defilement.[14]  There appears to be no other reason for AAA and her mother to have boldly initiated the present case but to seek justice for the bestial act committed by AAA's own father, accused-appellant.
2013-01-08
BERSAMIN, J.
To establish the age of the minor victim, either as an element of the crime or as a qualifying circumstance, the Court has set the guidelines in People v. Pruna,[57] as follows: In order to remove any confusion that may be engendered by the foregoing cases, we hereby set the following guidelines in appreciating age, either as an element of the crime or as a qualifying circumstance.
2012-11-28
LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, J.
In contrast, Batula's defenses of alibi and denial are inherently weak and have always been viewed with disfavor by the courts due to the facility with which they can be concocted. They warrant the least credibility or none at all and cannot prevail over the positive identification of the accused by the prosecution witnesses.[25]  In addition, Batula's alibi that he was in the forest with his brother Gil does not make it physically impossible for Batula to rape AAA on April 26, 2002 in Barangay Canano. For alibi to prosper, it must be proved that during the commission of the crime, the accused was in another place and that it was physically impossible for him to be at the crime scene.[26] The RTC pointed out that "the forest where [Batula] claimed to be when the rape occurred is in x x x [B]arangay Dalosduson, Hinabangan, Samar, linked by a road to Barangay Canano, so that impossibility and improbability are rendered naught."[27]
2012-09-19
BERSAMIN, J.
Secondly, the CA rectified the mistaken characterization by the RTC of the crime as statutory rape. We concur with the CA. Although the information alleged that AAA had been only 10 years of age at the time of the commission of the rape, the State did not reliably establish such age of the victim in accordance with the guidelines for competently proving such age laid down by the Court in People v. Pruna,[15] to wit: In order to remove any confusion that may be engendered by the foregoing cases, we hereby set the following guidelines in appreciating age, either as an element of the crime or as a qualifying circumstance.
2011-05-30
LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, J.
While we are aware of the divergent rulings on the proof required to establish the age of the victim in rape cases, this has already been addressed by this Court in People v. Pruna,[50] wherein we established certain guidelines in appreciating age, either as an element of the crime or as a qualifying circumstance.  We have reiterated these guidelines in the more recent case of People v. Flores,[51] as follows: 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.
2010-12-15
LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, J.
We agree with Flores that AAA's age was not proven with certainty.  This Court has held that for minority to be considered as a qualifying circumstance in the crime of rape, it must not only be alleged in the Information, but it must also be established with moral certainty.[17]  Noting the divergent rulings on the proof required to establish the age of the victim in rape cases, this Court, in People v. Pruna,[18] has set out the following guidelines in appreciating age, either as an element of the crime or as a qualifying circumstance: 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.
2009-07-03
BRION, J.
The relationship between the petitioner and AAA, as siblings, does not appear to be a disputed matter. Their mother, CCC, declared in her testimony that AAA and the petitioner are her children. The prosecution and the defense likewise stipulated in the proceedings below that the relationship exists. We find, however, that AAA's minority, though alleged in the Information, had not been sufficiently proven.[45] People v. Pruna[46] laid down these guidelines in appreciating the age of the complainant:In order to remove any confusion that may be engendered by the foregoing cases, we hereby set the following guidelines in appreciating age, either as an element of the crime or as a qualifying circumstance.
2007-09-21
CHICO-NAZARIO, J.
Finally, appellant makes capital of the fact that only a photocopy of AAA's birth certificate was offered in evidence and asserts that her minority has not been proven. We have examined the records of this case and found out that what was actually presented by the prosecution and admitted in evidence was a "certified true xerox copy of the original" issued by the municipal civil registrar of Buenavista, Quezon.[34] This being the case, we perceive no error in the trial court's admission of, and reliance upon said copy of AAA's birth certificate, for jurisprudence dictates that in appreciating age, either as an element of the crime or as a qualifying circumstance, the best evidence is an original or certified true copy of the certificate of live birth of a party.[35] As indicated in her birth certificate, AAA was born on 1 December 1986. The Information therefore correctly alleged that she was only fifteen years old when she was raped on 14 July 2002.
2006-09-27
AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J.
We find credible the victim's account, that on April 10, 1999, May 13, 1999 and May 16, 1999, when she was only eleven years old, appellant, her very own father, had carnal knowledge of her through force and intimidation. AAA[26] never faltered in her allegation that appellant molested her on three occasions. Her testimony was clear, spontaneous and straightforward. Hence, the fact of rape and identity of appellant as the offender were sufficiently proved. x x x x[27] The Court also went over AAA's testimony and indeed, there are no material flaws or discrepancies enough to cast any misgiving on the veracity of her account. Thus, it has been stated: "when a girl or a woman says that she has been raped she says in effect all that is necessary to show that rape was truly committed. She is not expected to remember all the ugly details of the outrage committed against her. And when her testimony passes the test of credibility, the accused can be convicted on the basis thereof, for in most cases it is the only evidence that can be offered to establish his guilt."[28] What is truly decisive in this case is that she was able to identify the accused as her rapist.[29]
2004-07-07
VITUG, J.
Appellant doubts the credibility of Grace Anne, being still a child, to testify.  In People v. Pruna,[15] the Court has observed: "As a general rule, when a witness takes the witness stand, the law, on ground of public policy, presumes that he is competent.  The court cannot reject the witness in the absence of proof of his incompetency.  The burden is, therefore, upon the party objecting to the competency of a witness to establish the ground of incompetency.  (VII Vicente J. Francisco, Part I, 234 [1997 Ed.], citing Wharton's Criminal Evidence, Section 1152 [11th Ed.])
2004-07-07
VITUG, J.
"7.     When by reason or on the occasion of the rape, the victim has suffered permanent physical mutilation.  (As amended by Sec. 11, RA 7659.)" People v. Pruna[24] has set forth the guidelines in the appreciation of the age of the victim, either as an element of the crime or as a qualifying circumstance, viz: "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.
2004-04-28
SANDOVAL-GUTIERREZ, J.
However, we find that the trial court erred in finding appellant guilty of qualified rape and in imposing the death penalty in each case. While the five Amended Informations sufficiently allege that Evelyn was 14 years of age when appellant, her own father, committed the crimes charged, however, the prosecution failed to prove her actual age. Evelyn's Certificate of Live Birth, the best evidence to prove her age,[38] was never offered in evidence. Josefina merely declared that Evelyn was 14 years old when appellant committed the crimes, without even stating the date she was born. Certainly, such declaration does not satisfy the requirement that the victim's age must be proved with certainty as the crime itself.[39]
2004-03-10
SANDOVAL-GUTIERREZ, J.
We find, however, that the trial court erred in concluding that the crime committed by appellant is statutory rape.  While the Information alleges that Imee was 10 years old when the crime was committed on February 6, 1994, the prosecution failed to present her Certificate of Live Birth or any other evidence to prove her age.[38]
2004-03-02
QUISUMBING, J.
1) When the victim is under eighteen (18) years of age and the offender is a parent, ascendant, step-parent, guardian, relative by consanguinity or affinity within the third civil degree, or the common-law spouse of the parent of the victim… Hence, before the penalty for the crime of rape may be raised from reclusion perpetua to death, two circumstances must be sufficiently proven: 1) the age of the victim, and 2) the relationship between the offender and the victim. In the case of People v. Pruna,[40] we made clear that the severity of the death penalty, especially its irreversible and final nature once carried out, makes the decision-making process in capital offenses aptly subject to nothing less than the most exacting rules of procedure and evidence.
2004-02-13
PER CURIAM
It has been held that the victim's age, being a qualifying circumstance which could raise the penalty to the supreme penalty of death, must be proved with equal certainty and clearness as the crime itself.[70] We also said in People v. Pruna[71] that the best evidence to prove the age of the offended party is an original or certified true copy of the latter's certificate of live birth.
2004-01-20
AZCUNA, J.
The fact of Angela's minority was properly alleged in the information, and her birth certificate confirming the same, is the best proof of her age.[47]
2003-11-27
SANDOVAL-GUTIERREZ, J.
Appellant heavily relies on the virgo intacta theory.[19] He disregards Dr. Daniel's testimony that there are two types of hymen: (1) one that remains intact even though there is penetration; (2) the other is lacerated after penetration.[20] We have ruled that in rape cases the absence of fresh lacerations does not preclude the finding of rape, [21] especially when the victim is of tender age.[22] Moreover, laceration of the hymen is not an element of the crime of rape.[23] Hymenal rupture or any indication of vaginal laceration or genital injury is not necessary for the consummation of rape.[24] Its absence does not negate a finding of forced sexual coitus.[25] For the rule is well settled that rape is consummated by the slightest penile penetration of the labia majora or pudendum of the female organ.[26] Indeed, the evidentiary weight of the medical examination of the victim, as well as the medical certificate, is merely corroborative in character and is not an indispensable element for conviction for rape.[27]
2003-11-11
CORONA, J.
This Court is not oblivious of the fact that there was an old healed laceration found in her organ during the medical examination, despite the fact that she was examined just one day after her alleged rape. In the past, we have ruled that the absence of fresh lacerations does not preclude a finding of rape[28] nor does the absence of spermatozoa negate the commission of rape because neither of the two is an indispensable element of the crime of rape.[29]
2003-10-17
PER CURIAM
People v. Pruna,[19]held that the best evidence to prove the age of the victim is the original or certified true copy of the birth certificate. In the absence of the birth certificate, similar authentic documents such as baptismal certificates and school records which show the victim's age may be offered. Should these be unavailable, the testimony, if clear and credible, of the victim's mother or 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 of Court shall be sufficient under the following circumstances: 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;
2003-09-23
CORONA, J.
In the recent case of People vs. Pruna,[25] this Court reconciled the apparently conflicting jurisprudence on how to prove the age of a rape victim. The case provided for a guideline in appreciating age, either as an element of the crime or as a qualifying circumstance: 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.
2003-09-23
SANDOVAL-GUTIERREZ, J.
In People vs. Pruna,[26] we set the following guidelines in appreciating age, either as an element of the crime or as a qualifying circumstance, thus: 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.
2003-09-23
YNARES-SANTIAGO, J.
In the recent case of People v. Pruna,[24] we laid down the following guidelines in appreciating age either as an element of the crime or as a qualifying circumstance: 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.
2003-08-06
SANDOVAL-GUTIERREZ, J.
In People vs. Pruna,[43] we specified the guidelines in determining the sufficiency of evidence of the victim's age as an element of the crime or as a qualifying circumstance, thus:"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.
2003-08-06
YNARES-SANTIAGO, J.
Hence, in addition to the requirement that the qualifying and aggravating circumstance must be specifically alleged in the information, it must be established with certainty that the victim was below eighteen (18) years of age or that she was a minor at the time of the commission of the crime. It must be stressed that the severity of the death penalty, especially its irreversible and final nature once carried out, makes the decision-making process in capital offense aptly subject to the most exacting rules of procedure and evidence.[30]
2003-07-17
CORONA, J.
In the absence of any other competent evidence, such as the baptismal certificate, school records or the testimony of the victim's relatives, the testimony of the private complainant was not sufficient proof of her actual age without an express and clear admission thereof by the appellant, pursuant to our ruling in People vs. Pruna.[27] Since it was the prosecution that had the burden of proving the age of the offended party, the failure of the appellant to object to the testimonial evidence regarding the victim's age could not be taken against him. The prosecution failed to prove the actual age of the private complainant as alleged in the separate informations, thus the appellant should be convicted of simple rape and sentenced accordingly to reclusion perpetua in each case.
2003-06-10
VITUG, J.
The Court is not persuaded by the claim of appellant that Marietta, the victim's mother, has fabricated the charge simply because appellant did not allow her to stay with him. It just is not a convincing tale. It is difficult to believe that Marietta would send his own father to jail, even to the gallows, sacrifice the honor and dignity of their family and subject her own child to untold humiliation and disgrace if she were motivated by any desire other than to bring to justice the person responsible for defiling her child.[14]
2003-06-10
VITUG, J.
In People vs. Pruna,[23] the Court, after noting the divergent rulings on proof of age of the victim in rape cases, has set out certain guidelines in appreciating age, either as an element of the crime or as a qualifying circumstance.  The primary evidence of age of the victim is her birth certificate. Age may also be proven by such authentic documents as a baptismal certificate and school records only in the absence of a birth certificate.  If the aforesaid documents are 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 pursuant to Section 40, Rule 130 of the Rules on Evidence shall be sufficient but only 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.
2003-04-11
AZCUNA, J.
The minority of the victim and the offender's relationship to the victim, which constitute only one special qualifying circumstance,[57] must be alleged in the Information and proved with certainty.[58] Recent rulings[59] of the Court relative to the rape of minors invariably state that in order to justify the imposition of the penalty of death, there must be independent evidence proving the age of the victim, other than the testimonies of prosecution witnesses and the absence of denial by the accused. A duly certified certificate of live birth accurately showing the complainant's age or some other authentic document such as a baptismal certificate or a school record has been recognized as competent evidence.[60]
2003-03-18
PUNO, J.
Coming now to the penalty, appellant rightly impugns the correctness of the sentence imposed by the trial court as the prosecution failed to adduce evidence to prove the qualifying circumstances of the victim's minority and her filiation with the accused. In People vs. Ramirez,[19] the Court en banc laid down the guidelines for the proper appreciation of minority either as an element of a crime or as a qualifying circumstance. It held that: (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 its absence, 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 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 pursuant to Section 40, Rule 130 of the Rules of Evidence shall be sufficient; and, (4) in the absence of all the above, the complainant's testimony will suffice provided it is expressly and clearly admitted by the appellant.
2003-03-05
CARPIO MORALES, J.
Because of the seemingly conflicting decisions regarding the sufficiency of evidence of the victim's age in rape cases, this Court, in the recently decided case of People v. Pruna,[30] established a set of guidelines in appreciating age as an element of the crime or as a qualifying circumstance, to wit: 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.
2003-03-05
DAVIDE JR., C.J.
In the very recent case of People v. Pruna,[31] we set the guidelines in appreciating age either as an element of the crime or as a qualifying circumstance: 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.
2003-02-17
CARPIO MORALES, J.
In People v. Pruna,[33] this Court set the following guidelines in appreciating age, either as an element of the crime or as a qualifying circumstance: 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.
2003-02-12
CORONA, J.
The matter of appreciating the age of the victim, either as an element of the crime or as a qualifying circumstance, was settled when the Court, in the case of People vs. Pruna,[43] laid down the following guidelines: 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.
2003-01-28
SANDOVAL-GUTIERREZ, J.
In the recent case of People vs. Manuel Pruna y Ramirez or Erman Pruna y Ramirez,[37] this Court laid down the following guidelines in appreciating age, either as an element of the crime or as a qualifying circumstance:"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.
2003-01-14
BELLOSILLO, J.
Q: Did he insert his private part into your private part that day, February 25, 1999? A: Yes, sir. But for accused Rogelio to be convicted of qualified rape and sentenced to death, it must be established with certainty that Analyn was below eighteen (18) years of age or that she was a minor at the time of the commission of the crime. It must be stressed that the severity of the death penalty, especially its irreversible and final nature once carried out, makes the decision-making process in capital offenses aptly subject to the most exacting rules of procedure and evidence.[8] However, no birth certificate or similar authentic document, e.g., school records or baptismal certificate of Analyn was presented to prove her age.
2002-12-10
PANGANIBAN, J.
In People v. Pruna,[25] the Court said that "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."[26] But in the absence of that