G.R. No. 138471 October 10, 2002
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. MANUEL PRUNA y RAMIREZ or ERMAN PRUNA y RAMIREZ, accused-appellant.

FACTS

On January 3, 1995, in Sitio Tabing-ilog, Brgy. Panilao, Pilar, Bataan, three-year-old Lizette Arabelle Gonzales was allegedly raped by the accused-appellant, Manuel Pruna y Ramirez, also known as Erman Pruna y Ramirez. Lizette was defecating at the backyard of a neighbor’s house when the incident occurred. Her mother, Jacqueline Gonzales, found her crying and frightened. Lizette stated she was brought by “Boy” (Pruna’s nickname) to a grassy area and sexually molested. They immediately reported to the police, and Lizette was examined at the Bataan Provincial Hospital. Dr. Emelita Quiroz’s medico-legal report indicated an intact hymen but with hyperemia, and laboratory tests on vaginal smear and urine were positive for sperm cells. The defense presented an alibi, with Pruna claiming he was at home preparing coffee and was later mauled and tortured by the police and the victim’s family. The trial court convicted Pruna of qualified rape and sentenced him to death. The case is under automatic review.

ISSUE

1. Whether Lizette was a competent and credible witness considering her tender age (3 at the time of the incident, 5 when testifying).
2. Whether the testimony of Jacqueline Gonzales regarding her daughter’s declarations is hearsay.
3. Whether the failure to present Gloria Tolentino (the neighbor) as a witness is fatal to the prosecution’s case.
4. Whether appellant’s guilt has been proved beyond reasonable doubt.
5. Whether the qualifying circumstance of minority was duly proved to justify the death penalty.

RULING

1. Yes, Lizette was a competent and credible witness. The trial court properly allowed her testimony after a preliminary examination where she demonstrated intelligence and a capacity to perceive and narrate. The law presumes every witness is competent, and her young age alone does not disqualify her. Her testimony was clear, consistent, and credible.
2. No, Jacqueline’s testimony is not hearsay. The statements made by Lizette to her mother immediately after the incident are part of the res gestae exception to the hearsay rule. They were spontaneous statements made under the influence of a startling event (the rape) and are thus admissible.
3. No, the failure to present Gloria Tolentino is not fatal. The prosecution is not required to present every witness, only enough to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt. Her testimony would have been merely corroborative.
4. Yes, appellant’s guilt was proved beyond reasonable doubt. Lizette’s positive identification of Pruna, her credible testimony, the medical findings (hyperemia and presence of sperm cells), and the res gestae declaration collectively establish his guilt. The defense of alibi is weak and uncorroborated.
5. No, the qualifying circumstance of minority was not duly proved. The prosecution failed to present Lizette’s birth certificate or other documentary evidence to conclusively prove she was under seven years old at the time of the rape, which is required for the imposition of the death penalty under the applicable law ( Republic Act No. 7659 ). Her mother’s testimony alone is insufficient. Therefore, the penalty is reduced to reclusion perpetua.
The Supreme Court AFFIRMED the conviction but MODIFIED the penalty from death to reclusion perpetua. The award of civil indemnity was increased to P50,000, and an additional P50,000 as moral damages was granted.