PEOPLE V ALEGADO (Pedigree)

August 21, 1991 | Gutierrez, J. | Exceptions to Hearsay-Pedigree

Plaintiff-appellee: PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES

Accused-appellant: ALFREDO ALEGADO

SUMMARY: Cristina Deang, a girl less than 12 years of age, was raped twice by Alegado in a public market. The issue is whether
she was actually below 12 at the time of the incidents. Deang and her grandfather testified regarding her age. Alegado argues that
their testimonies are hearsay. SC: Not hearsay, it falls under the exception because all the requisites are present.

DOCTRINE: Requisites for the applicability of Rule 130, Section 39

1. That there is controversy in respect to the pedigree of any of the members of a family
2. That the reputation or tradition of the pedigree of the person concerned existed previous to the controversy; and
3. That the witness testifying to the reputation or tradition regarding the pedigree of the person must be a member of the
family of said person.

FACTS: The reputation or tradition existing in a family previous

Alfredo Alegado was charged and convicted of 2 counts of to the controversy, in respect to the PEDIGREE of any
rape of Cristina Deang (a girl below 12 years old) inside the of its members, may be received in evidence if the
Public Market of San Carlos, Negros Occidental. witness testifying thereon be also a member of the
family, either by consanguinity or affinity.

The main issue in this case is whether Deang was actually

below 12 at the time of the rape, so as to convict Alegado of The word pedigree under Section 39 of the same Rule
statutory rape. Deang and her maternal grandfather Cornelio includes relationship, family genealogy, birth, marriage, death,
Villarosa testified that Deang was born on Sep 5, 1976. Rape the dates when and the places where these facts occurred and
happened on Apr 14 & 20, 1988. the names of the relatives.

Alegado argues that DEANG'S AGE AT THE TIME OF Lazatin v. Campos:

THE INCIDENTS WAS NOT ESTABLISHED WITH
CERTAINTY, so he was wrongly convicted of statutory Declarations in regard to pedigree, although hearsay,
rape. He argued that the testimonies of Deang and her are admitted on the principle that they are natural
grandfather are hearsay expressions of persons who must know the truth

Pedigree testimony is admitted because it is the best

that the nature of the case admits and because greater
ISSUE: [Pedigree only] evil might arise from the rejection of such proof than
from its admission.
W/N The testimonies regarding Deang's age are hearsay --NO

In the present case, all requisites for the applicability of Rule

RATIO:
130, Section 39 are present:
SC: The testimonies of Deang and her grandfather are
1 That there is controversy in respect to the pedigree of
NOT HEARSAY. They fall under the exception
any of the members of a family

o Deang's date of birth is in issue

RULE 130 SEC. 40.
2 That the reputation or tradition of the pedigree of the
Family reputation or tradition regading pedigree. person concerned existed previous to the controversy
 o The declaration of the Deang's grandfather
relating to tradition existed long before the rape
case was filed
o The grandfather testified that Deang's
mother asked him to send Deang to school upon
reaching the age of 7 and that her birthday was
Sep 5, 1976
3 That the witness testifying to the reputation or tradition
regarding the pedigree of the person must be a member
of the family of said person.
o The witness testifying to the said tradition is
the maternal grandfather of the rape Deang
CONVICTED.
[Facts of the Rape, IRRELEVANT to the topic, in case lang]
Rape 1: Apr 14, 1988, about 6pm
Deang was playing inside the market when Alegado ,
a watchman, took her to the 2nd floor. He ordered her
to give him a handjob.
He ordered her to lie down, forced her to remove her
pedal pushers and panty. He tried to insert his penis
into her vagina but it did not penetrate fully before he
ejaculated
Deang bled a little then he gave her P2.00 and left
Rape 2: Apr 20, 1988, about 7pm
He again took her to the 2nd floor. Deang resisted
when he tried to remove her shorts and panty
Alegado inserted his penis into her vagina but it took
sometime before he penetrated jer. When he did, Deang
felt excruciating pain and begged him to stop. She felt
some liquid oozing out from appellant's organ and into
her being. She was also bleeding.
Patrolwoman Evangeline Alfaro saw the two when they went
down and she asked Deang what happened. Deang told her she
was raped. The incident was reported to the Station Guard and
Deang was taken to the police station for examination.
Alegado was taken into custody and identified by Deang.
Medical exam showed that Deang had sperm cells inside her
vagina and along her cervical wall. Her vagina was also
lacerated
Alegado's defense:
Apr 14: He was busy roving the area with his fellow
watchmen
Apr 20: He was having snacks with friends when he
was arrested and brought to the station
On both days, he didn't see Deang
Alfaro has been harboring ill feelings toward him
because he refused her request for him ask what 4
armed men in the market wanted