UNIVERSITY OF THE PHILIPPINES COLLEGE OF LAW Evidence

E2024 Professor Jacoba

People v. Alegado y Delima
G.R. No. 93030-31 – August 21, 1991
Third Division | Gutierrez, J.

Topic: Hearsay; Exceptions; Family Reputation or Tradition Regarding Pedigree (Rule 130, Section 42)

Article/s Invoked:
Rule 130, Sec. 40. — Family reputation or tradition regarding pedigree — 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.

Parties:
PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE ACCUSSED-APPELLANT
People of the Philippines Alfredo Alegado y Delima

Case Summary:
Alegado was convicted of two counts of rape by the RTC – San Carlos City and sentenced to reclusion
perpetua on both counts [See Facts for details on the rape]. Alegado contends that Deang’s actual age at the
time of the alleged incidents of rape was not established with certainty, hence, it was the RTC’s error to convict
him of statutory rape.

The SC does not agree. The testimonies of the prosecution witness, Deang and her maternal grandfather,
Cornelio Villarosa, as to the fact that she was born on September 5, 1976, do not constitute hearsay evidence
as claimed by Alegado but rather fall under the exceptions to the hearsay rule as provided under Secs. 39 and
40 of Rule 130 [See Articles Invoked].

The word “pedigree” under Sec. 30 includes relationship, family genealogy, birth, marriage, death, the dates
when and the places where these facts occurred and the names of the relatives.
Lazatin v. Campos - ". . . [D]eclarations in regard to pedigree, although hearsay, are admitted on
the principle that they are natural expressions of persons who must know the truth (See Sec. 33,
Rule 130 Revised Rules of Court now Sec. 39, Rule 130 under the new Rules). Pedigree testimony is
admitted because it is 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. (Wigmore on Evidence, Sec. 1420)"
ITC, the applicability of Section 39, Rule 130 to prove Deang’s age is beyond question. The said provision
contains three requisites for admissibility:
(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
All preconditions are obtaining in this case, considering that the date of birth of the victim is put in issue; that
the declaration of the victim’s grandfather relating to tradition (sending child to school upon reaching the age
of 7) existed long before the rape case was filed; and that the witness testifying to the said tradition is the
maternal grandfather of the rape victim.

FACTS OF THE CASE

Alegado was convicted of two counts of rape by the RTC – San Carlos City and sentenced to reclusion
perpetua on both counts.

Christina Deang, below 12 years old, filed two criminal complaints against Alegado, claiming that he raped
her on the evenings of April 20, 1988 and April 14, 1988 at the Public Market of San Carlos City, Negros
Occidental. At pre-trial, the defense and prosecution agreed on a joint trial and stipulated on only one fact:
 UNIVERSITY OF THE PHILIPPINES COLLEGE OF LAW Evidence
E2024 Professor Jacoba
that Alegado, as watchman of the public market, was inside the said premises during the two occasions of the
alleged rapes. Both parties presented two issues for the RTC’s consideration:

(1) W/N Deang was actually 12 years old at the time of the incidents; and
(2) W/N Alegado had carnal knowledge of Deang by means of force and intimidation

Prosecution Version
First Rape (April 14)
• At about 6PM, Deang was playing at the Freedom Square inside the public market when Alegado (170
lbs, 53 years old) held her by the hand and took her upstairs to the second floor of the public market
building, which houses government offices was deserted at the time.
• When the yreached the upper floor, Alegado ordered Deang to hold his penis and masturbate it;
afterward, he ordered her to lie down, and when she refused, he pushed her down on the floor. While
she was laying prostrate on her back, Alegado placed himself on top of her while she was still wearing
her shorts and panty, then forced her to take them off. He then tried to insert his penis into her vagina
but did not penetrate fully before he ejaculated. Deang bled a little. Afterward, Alegado gave Deang
P2.00 and left.
• Deang did not tell anybody about it because she was afraid Alegado would kill her.

Second Rape (April 20)

• At about 7PM, Deang was sitting at the Freedom Square when Alegado approached and told her to go
with him upstairs to the second floor of the public market. Deang refused, but Alegado shoved her
towards the stairs, held her by her left arm, and brought her to the upper floor near the civic center.
• Alegado then ordered Deang to take off her shorts and panty, but she refused. Eventually, Alegado
inserted his penis into Deang’s vagina; Deang felt excruciating pain and begged Alegado to stop, but
he just ignored her. Deang felt some liquid oozing out from Alegado and into her; after he withrew his
sex organ, Deang discovered that she was bleeding. Alegado then stood up, told her not to tell anybody
about it, then gave her P2.00 again and left.
• Patrolwoman Alfaro of the San Carlos City INP saw Alegado as he was going down the stairs; she
knew Alegado well because he was the public market watchman. A minute later, Pat. Alfaro saw
Deang coming down the same stairs and noticed she was pale, with blood flowing to her thighs and
legs, and reeling as if feeling dizzy.
o Alfaro approached Deang and asked her what happened, who told her that she was raped by
Alegado upstairs. Alfaro immediately took her to the city hospital where she was examined by
Dr. Jagdon in the presence of two medtechs, who confirmed that Deang was indeed raped.
o Alfaro reported the incident to the Station Guard by phone then took Deang to the police station
after the medical exam. When they reached the station, Deang readily identified Alegado, who
had already been taken into custody. Deang was then investigated and she rendered her
statement to the police.
o Dr. Jagdon found some secretion inside Deang’s vagina along the cervical wall which turned
out to be sperm cells, and Deang’s vagina was lacerated, although there was only partial
penetration of the male organ into her vagina.

Defense Version
First Rape (April 14)
• Testified that he was on duty at about 6PM. Before 7PM, he and his co-watchman roamed around the
area checking the padlocks of the stores. At about 8:30PM, they closed all the doors of the vegetables,
meat and dried fish sections.
• Alegado did not meet Deang as he and his companions were busy roving around the area.

Second Rape (April 20)

 UNIVERSITY OF THE PHILIPPINES COLLEGE OF LAW Evidence
E2024 Professor Jacoba
• At about 5PM, he was having snacks at Valdevia Street, with Cpl. ALlarce and Lito Alvarez. They
stayed there until about 7:30PM when to his surprise, he was arrested and brought to the station by
Pat. Apuhin and companions, including Pat. Alfaro.
• Alleged that from 5PM-7:30PM on April 20, he neverm et and/or saw Deang.
o Sgt. Allarce testified that he was invited by Alegado to have a snack at Namie’s lunch at about
5PM on April 20. They finished the snack at about 6PM; thereafter, Alegado and Alvarez
invited him to go to Valdevia Street for a drinking spree. He went out at about 7PM, leaving
Alegado in the store.

ISSUE/S & RATIO/S

W/N any cogent reason exists to reverse the conviction of the trial court under pars. 1 and 3 of Art. 335,
RPC—NN.
• Alegado contends that Deang’s actual age at the time of the alleged incidents of rape was not
established with certainty, hence, it was the RTC’s error to convict him of statutory rape.
o The SC does not agree. The testimonies of the prosecution witness, Deang and her maternal
grandfather, Cornelio Villarosa, as to the fact that she was born on September 5, 1976, do not
constitute hearsay evidence as claimed by Alegado but rather fall under the exceptions to the
hearsay rule as provided under Secs. 39 and 40 of Rule 130 [See Articles Invoked]
o The word “pedigree” under Sec. 30 includes relationship, family genealogy, birth, marriage,
death, the dates when and the places where these facts occurred and the names of the relatives.
o Lazatin v. Campos - ". . . [D]eclarations in regard to pedigree, although hearsay, are admitted
on the principle that they are natural expressions of persons who must know the truth (See Sec.
33, Rule 130 Revised Rules of Court now Sec. 39, Rule 130 under the new Rules). Pedigree
testimony is admitted because it is 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. (Wigmore on
Evidence, Sec. 1420)"
• ITC, the applicability of Section 39, Rule 130 to prove Deang’s age is beyond question. The said
provision contains three requisites for admissibility:
(4) That there is controversy in respect to the pedigree of any of the members of a family;
(5) That the reputation or tradition of the pedigree of the person concerned existed previous to the
controversy; and
(6) 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
• All preconditions are obtaining in this case, considering that the date of birth of the victim is put in
issue; that the declaration of the victim’s grandfather relating to tradition (sending child to school upon
reaching the age of 7) existed long before the rape case was filed; and that the witness testifying to the
said tradition is the maternal grandfather of the rape victim.
o Moreover, Deang herself categorically stated in open court that she was born on September 5,
1976. It is long-settled that the testimony of a person as to his age is admissible although
hearsay and though a 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 form his parents and relatives, and his testimony in
such case is an assertion of family tradition.

[Other ratio]
• The gravamen of the offense of statutory rape under Art. 335, par. 3 of the RPC is carnal knowledge
of a woman below 12 years old.
o Not necessary to prove that the victim was intimidated or that force was used against her,
because in statutory rape, the law presumes that the victim, on account of her tender age, does
not and cannot have a will of her own.
o ITC, there is clear and competent evidence that the victim was under 12 years old at the time
of the rape incidents. The argument of Alegado that the alleged rapes were not attended by any
force or intimidation must also fail.
 UNIVERSITY OF THE PHILIPPINES COLLEGE OF LAW Evidence
E2024 Professor Jacoba
o Deang’s testimony regarding ALegado’s wicked acts against her chastity on two occasions was
given in a straightforward manner, without any indication that the same was motivated by any
ill-feeling. The fact of the rapes was also corroborated by the examining physician whose
medical finding revealed sperm cells inside Deang’s sexual organ due to partial penetration of
the male organ into it.
• The absence of external signs of physical injuries and the failure of Deang to shout for help at the first
opportunity do not negate the commission of rape.
• The act of Alegado of giving Deang P2.00 after each of the rapes apparently as full atonement of his
dastardly act smacks of insult a hundred times compounded. Alegado, had the gall to reiterate before
the SC his claim that the acceptance of the measly amount of P2.00 was tantamount to a tacit consent
on the part of the victim.
o The SC deplores such a highly offensive and depraved argument, for it cannot allow the
innocent and helpless victims of unsolicited and forcible defloration to be brutally insulted
while yet nursing their irreparably wounded sexual purity.
• Considering the age of the victim, the depravity of the crimes, and the psychological trauma involved,
the SC increased the indemnity to P50,000.

RULING
Appealed decision AFFIRMED with modification; civil indemnity increased to P50,000 for each rape case.

NOTES