GR 132364; (September, 2002) (Digest)
G.R. No. 132364, September 27, 2002
People of the Philippines, Appellee, vs. Alfredo Alvero y Tarado, Appellant.
FACTS
The appellant, Alfredo Alvero y Tarado, was convicted of qualified rape and sentenced to death. In his Brief, he claimed he was only seventeen years old at the time of the rape incident, but the Court initially did not believe this assertion due to a lack of corroborating evidence. In a Motion for Reconsideration of the Court’s May 23, 2001 Decision affirming the death penalty, the appellant submitted a certified true copy of his Certificate of Live Birth showing he was born on May 7, 1979, to prove his minority. The Office of the Solicitor General (OSG) required authentication from the National Statistics Office (NSO). Upon the Court’s directive, the Public Attorney’s Office (PAO) submitted a Certificate of Live Birth issued and authenticated by the NSO. The OSG then noted a discrepancy between the name on the birth certificate (“Alfredo Parado Albero Jr.”) and the name in the Information (“Alfredo Alvero y Tarado”). The PAO explained this was a negligible clerical error and assured the Court they refer to the same person.
ISSUE
Whether the duly authenticated Certificate of Live Birth, submitted after the judgment of conviction had attained finality, should be admitted as evidence to prove the appellant’s minority as a privileged mitigating circumstance, thereby precluding the imposition of the death penalty.
RULING
Yes. The Motion for Reconsideration is GRANTED. The Court’s Decision of May 23, 2001, is MODIFIED. The penalty is reduced from death to reclusion perpetua. The civil indemnity ex delicto is reduced to P50,000. The Court held that the discrepancy in the names was trivial and negligible, likely a clerical error, and accepted the PAO’s assurance that the names refer to the same person. The authenticated birth certificate proved the appellant was born on May 7, 1979, making him seventeen years old at the time of the crime on October 7, 1996. This established the privileged mitigating circumstance of minority under Article 68 of the Revised Penal Code, warranting the imposition of the penalty next lower than that prescribed by law. Although evidence is generally not allowed after final judgment, the Court, in the exercise of its power to review and in the higher interest of justice, especially to save the accused from a death sentence, admitted the evidence. The Court cited its precedent in People vs. Gallo, which allows for the modification of a final judgment when supervening events or the interest of justice warrant it.