This case has been cited 3 times or more.
|
2006-02-16 |
PER CURIAM |
||||
| In the case at bar, the defense did not dispute the contents of the photocopied birth certificate; in fact it admitted the same. Having failed to raise a valid and timely objection against the presentation of this secondary evidence the same became a primary evidence, and deemed admitted and the other party is bound thereby.[22] | |||||
|
2005-08-03 |
PER CURIAM |
||||
| In the case at bar, the defense did not dispute the contents of the photocopied birth certificate; in fact it admitted the same. Having failed to raise a valid and timely objection against the presentation of this secondary evidence the same became a primary evidence, and deemed admitted and the other party is bound thereby.[28] | |||||
|
2002-03-18 |
SANDOVAL-GUTIERREZ, J. |
||||
| There was no more need for the prosecution to present Jewelyn's certificate of live birth or other equally acceptable official document to prove her age. In People vs. Doroteo Abaño,[19] such independent proof can be dispensed with in cases where the court can take judicial notice of the victim's tender age in view of the manifest minority of the victim. Judicial notice of the victim's age may be taken when the victim is ten (10) years old or below.[20] The trial court carefully noted in its Decision that Jewelyn then was only seven (7) years old. Ramona Franco, the victim's mother, categorically testified that her daughter was born on October 16, 1991. This Court has ruled that the testimony of the mother is admissible as she is in the best position to know when she delivered her child.[21] Even the appellant himself admitted, when he testified in May of 1999, that she was "about seven (7) years old."[22] | |||||