223. People v.

Alegado
GR No. 93030-31 | 21 August 1991 | Gutierrez, Jr., J.
Aggy | Topic: ​Act or declaration about pedigree/family reputation
Case Summary: ​Alegado was charged and convicted with 2 counts of statutory rape in RTC for having raped on 2
separate occassions Cristina Deang, who at the time, was below 12 years old. Alegado interposed an alibi.
Nevertheless, RTC convicted him. Alegado appealed his conviction and argued that RTC erred in convicting him of
statutory rape despite the prosecution’s failure to prove with certainty the actual age of Cristina.

SC found that Cristina’s age has been established with certainty. The testimony of Cristina and her maternal
grandfather do not constitute hearsay evidence but rather fall under the exceptions to the hearsay rule under Secs. 39
and 40, Rule 130. ​The requisites for the admissibility of declarations in regard to pedigree are: (1) There is
controversy in respect to the pedigree of any of the members of a family; (2) The reputation or tradition of the
pedigree of the person concerned existed previous to the controversy; and (3) The witness testifying to the
reputation or tradition regarding the pedigree of the person must be a member of the family of said person.
ITCAB, all the requisites for admissibility are present in this case considering that: (1) The age of Cristina was put in
issue; (2) The witness testify to the said tradition is the maternal grandfather of Cristina; and (3) The declaration of
Cristina’s grandfather relating to tradition existed long before the rape case was filed. The tradition referred to was the
sending of a child to school upon reaching the age of seven. The grandfather testified that Cristina was left to him by
her mother in 1983. Cristina’s mother (his daughter) told him that Cristina was born on Sept. 5, 1976 and that he should
let Cristina go to school because she was at the time already 7 years old. Based on the information relayed to him by
his daughter, he sent Cristina to school. Moreover, even Cristina testified in open court that she was born on Sept. 5,
1976. Jurisprudence has long settled that the testimony of a person as to his age is admissible although hearsay and
though the person can have no personal knowledge of the date of his birth as all the knowledge a person has of his age
is acquired from what he is told by his parents––he may testify as to his age as he had learned it from his parents and
relatives and his testimony is such a case is an assertion of family tradition.

Facts:
1. Alegado was charged and convicted with 2 counts of rape in RTC for having raped Cristina Deang on 2
separate occassions. ​At the time, Cristina was below 12 years old.
a. At pre-trial, both sides stipulated one fact: Alegado was a watchman of the San Carlos City
Public Market and was inside the premises during the 2 occasions when the rapes transpired.
b. Two common issues for the RTC was: (1) W/N Cristina was below 12 years old; and (2) W/N
Alegada had carnal knowledge with Cristina by means of force and intimidation.
2. April 14, 1988, 6PM – Cristina was playing at the Freedom Square inside the public market of San
Carlos City when Alegado (53 years old), a market watchman, held her by the hand and took her
upstair to the 2nd floor which houses some government offices and which at the time was expectedly
deserted.
a. Alegado forced Cristina to take off her pedal pushers (tokong) and her panty. He then inserted
his penis inside her. Thereafter, he gave Cristina P2.00 and left. [​He even argued that the P2.00
amounted to a tacit consent on the part of the victim. SC held this was a highly offensive and
depraved argument​]
3. April 20, 1988, 7PM – Cristina was sitting at the Freedom Square when Alegado approached her and
told her to go with him to the 2nd floor. Cristina initially refused but Alegado shoved her towards the
stairs, held her by the arm, and brought her to the upper floor near the civic center.
a. He again ordered her to take off her shorts and panty, and threatened to kill her if she did not
comply. Alegado was able to penetrate Cristina and the latter felt some liquid oozing out of
Alegado’s organ and into her being.
b. After Alegado withdrew his organ, Cristina found that her vagina was bleeding. Alegado once
again gave Cristina P2.00 and left.
c. Patrolwoman Evangeline Alfaro saw Alegado going down the stairs. Later, she also saw Cristina
come down. Cristina appeared to be pale, with blood flowing to her thighs and legs and was
reeling as if feeling dizzy.
 d. Alfaro approached Cristina and asked her what happened. Cristina told her that she was raped
by Alegado.
e. When Cristina was brought to the hospital for examination, Dr. Jagdon confirmed that Cristina
was indeed raped as she found sperm cells inside Cristina’s vagina, and the organ also had
some lacerations.
4. Alegado interposed an alibi claiming that he did not see Cristina on April 14. He also claimed that he
was having snacks at Namie’s Lunch at about 5PM on April 20 with Sgt. Allarce and Lito Alvarez; and
that they left the store only at 7:30PM.
a. Sgt. Allarce stated that he was invited by Alegado to have snacks at 6PM. But Allarce left
Alegado at the store at about 7PM.
5. Alegado appealed his conviction and argued that ​RTC erred in convicting him of statutory rape
despite the prosecution’s failure to prove with certainty the actual age of Cristina​.

Issue/s and Holding:

W/N Cristina’s actual age at the time of the rapes have been established with certainty?​ – YES
● SC found that the testimony of Cristina and her maternal grandfather do not constitute hearsay
evidence but rather fall under the exceptions to the hearsay rule under ​Secs. 39 and 40, Rule 130
● Sec. 40 (now 42), Rule 130 provides that “The reputation or tradition existing in a family previous to
the controversy, in respect to the pedigree of any of its members, may be received in evidence if the
witness testifying thereon be also a member of the family, either by consanguinity or affinity."
○ Sec. 39, Rule 130 ​also provides that ​pedigree includes ​relationship, family genealogy, birth,
marriage, death, the dates when and the places where these facts occurred, and the names of
the relatives.
● [​DOCTRINE​] The requisites for the admissibility of declarations in regard to pedigree are:
(1) There is controversy in respect to the pedigree of any of the members of a family;
(2) The reputation or tradition of the pedigree of the person concerned existed previous to the
controversy; and
(3) The witness testifying to the reputation or tradition regarding the pedigree of the person must be
a member of the family of said person.
● Lazatin v. Campos:​ ​Declarations in regard to pedigree, though hearsay, are admitted on the principle
that they are natural expressions of persons who must know the truth. They are admitted because they
are the best that the nature of the case admits and because greater evil might arise from the rejection
of such proof than from its admission.
● ITCAB​, all the requisites for admissibility are present in this case considering that:
(1) The age of Cristina was put in issue;
(2) The declaration of Cristina’s grandfather relating to tradition existed long before the rape case
was filed; and
● The tradition referred to was the sending of a child to school upon reaching the age of
seven.
● The grandfather testified that Cristina was left to him by her mother in 1983. Cristina’s
mother (his daughter) told him that Cristina was born on Sept. 5, 1976 and that he
should let Cristina go to school because she was at the time already 7 years old.
● Based on the information relayed to him by his daughter, he sent Cristina to school for
Grade I in SMAC Elementary School.
(3) The witness testify to the said tradition is the maternal grandfather of Cristina.
● Moreover, even Cristina testified in open court that she was born on Sept. 5, 1976.
○ Jurisprudence has long settled that the testimony of a person as to his age is admissible
although hearsay and though the person can have no personal knowledge of the date of his
birth as all the knowledge a person has of his age is acquired from what he is told by his
parents––he may testify as to his age as he had learned it from his parents and relatives and his
testimony is such a case is an assertion of family tradition.
 ○ Here, inasmuch as Alegado failed to present contrary evidence to dispute the prosecution’s
claim that Cristina was below 12 years old at the time of the rape, SC affirmed the RTC’s finding
of Cristina’s age.

Ruling:​ RTC decision is ​AFFIRMED.

OTHERS
W/N there was force and intimidation?
● This issue is irrelevant since the crime charged is statutory rape, the gravamen of which is the carnal knowledge
of a woman below 12 years old. Hence, the only elements of the crime are: (1) offender had carnal knowledge of
a woman; and (2) such woman is under 12 years of age.
● It is not then necessary to prove that the victim was intimidated or that force was used against her.
● Nevertheless, there was force and intimidation in this case. The testimony of Cristina that there was force and
intimidation was given in a straightforward manner without any indication that the same was motivated by any ill
feeling towards Alegado.
○ The absence of external signs of physical injuries and the failure of the victim to shout for help at the first
opportunity do not negate the commission of rape contrary to the accused-appellant's propositions. The
force used in rape cases need not be absolutely overpowering or irresistible. What is essential is simply
that the force employed was sufficient to allow the offender to consummate his lewd purpose.