5 Guidelines in Appreciating Age as Crime Element or Qualifying Circumstance

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:

[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 the absence of a certificate of live birth, 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 on Evidence 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;
  • 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;
  • 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.
[4.] In the absence of a certificate of live birth, authentic document, or the testimony of the victim’s mother or relatives concerning the victim’s age, the complainant’s testimony will suffice provided that it is expressly and clearly admitted by the accused.

[5.] It is the prosecution that has the burden of proving the age of the offended party. The failure of the accused to object to the testimonial evidence regarding age shall not be taken against him.19

In the case at bar, not only did the prosecution fail to present AAA’s birth certificate, but BBB, the victim’s mother herself, gave contradictory statements on the true age of her daughter. At one time she said that AAA was 13 years old, and yet when asked about the year of AAA’s birthday, she declared that it was 1982. AAA herself did not know the exact year she was born. The Certification from the Municipal Civil Registrar20 of General Luna, Quezon that both parties offered as evidence of AAA’s age has no probative value because it was not a certification as to the true age of AAA but as to the fact that the records of birth filed in their archives included those registered from 1930 up to the time the certificate was requested, and that records for the period of 1930 – June 23, 1994 were razed by fire. (G.R. No. 177355; December 15, 2010)