GR 54063; (July, 1981) (Digest)
G.R. No. L-54063 July 24, 1981
THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. FRANCISCO VILLAR, ET AL., accused, FRANCISCO VILLAR, accused-appellant.
FACTS
Accused-appellant Francisco Villar, after the prosecution rested its case, withdrew his plea of not guilty and pleaded guilty to the crime of Murder. He was sentenced to reclusion perpetua. On appeal, he raised the sole issue that the trial court erred in not appreciating his minority as a privileged mitigating circumstance. To prove his claim, he presented a Certificate of Live Birth (Exhibit 1) showing his birthdate as October 26, 1961, which would make him 15 years old at the time of the crime in August 1977. This certificate, however, was registered only on January 12, 1979, over 17 years after his purported birth and shortly before his change of plea. Supporting testimonies came from his mother and siblings.
The prosecution countered with Villar’s sworn statement (Exhibit E) taken on August 25, 1977, a day after the crime, wherein he declared his age to be 22 years. Villar admitted executing the statement but claimed he only gave his birthdate, not his age as 22.
ISSUE
Whether the trial court erred in not appreciating the privileged mitigating circumstance of minority.
RULING
The Supreme Court affirmed the trial court’s decision, holding that minority was not duly proven. The Court adopted the lower court’s reasoning, which found the belatedly registered Certificate of Live Birth (Exhibit 1) to rest on a “slender and shaky foundation” due to the unexplained delay in registration long after the crime. The testimonies of his young siblings were also deemed lacking credibility as they could not have had personal knowledge of his birth.
In contrast, the sworn statement (Exhibit E) was executed spontaneously a day after the crime, was replete with details only the accused could provide, and contained a clear declaration of being 22 years old. While Article 410 of the Civil Code makes civil register entries prima facie evidence, they are not conclusive. The Local Civil Registrar does not verify the truth of the information submitted. Given the circumstances surrounding Exhibit 1’s late registration, the trial court correctly rejected it in favor of the more credible contemporaneous sworn statement. Thus, Villar failed to prove his minority by the requisite preponderance of evidence.