4. [G.R. No. 131516.

March 5, 2003]
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. RONNIE RULLEPA y
GUINTO, accused-appellant.

Facts:
Rullepa, a houseboy, was charged with Rape for allegedly having carnal
knowledge with AAA, three (3) years of age. The victim and her mother testified that
AAA was only 3 years old at the time of the rape, however, no certificate of live birth or
similar authentic documents were presented in evidence to support the statements.

RTC imposed the supreme penalty of death upon Rullepa relying on the
testimonies of AAA and her mother that AAA was three (3) years old when the crime
was committed, hence, qualifying the penalty.

Issue: WON the age of AAA was established with certainty that she was below 7 years
old.

Ruling:

No, the age of AAA was not established with moral certainty that she was below
7 years old. A person’s appearance, where relevant, is admissible as object evidence,
the same being addressed to the senses of the court.
But the weight to accord such appearance depends on the disparity between
the alleged age and that sought to be proved.
In the case, a mature 3 ½ could be mistaken for underdeveloped 7 years old.

As it has not been established with moral certainty that Cyra May was below
seven years old at the time of the commission of the offense, accused-appellant cannot
be sentenced to suffer the death penalty. Only the penalty of reclusion perpetua can
be imposed upon him.