THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, VS. FRANCISCO VILLAR, ET AL., ACCUSED, FRANCISCO VILLAR, ACCUSED-APPELLANT.

In the Court of First Instance of Rizal,
Francisco Villar and Angel San Andres were accused of
Murder (Criminal Case No. C-9146) which was committed according to the
information as follows:

“That on or about the 24th day of August, 1977, in Caloocan City, Metro-Manila and within the jurisdiction of
this Honorable Court, the above-named accused, conspiring together and mutually
helping one another, without any
justifiable cause, with deliberate intent to kill and with treachery and
evident premeditation, did then and there wilfully,
unlawfully and feloniously attack, assault and stab with a bladed instrument at
the left chest one ARTURO C. PINEDA, thereby inflicting serious physical
injuries upon the latter, which injuries caused his death at the M. C. U. Hospital,
this city.”

Angel San Andres was acquitted on June 27, 1979.  In
the meantime, Francisco Villar on January 16, 1979, with the assistance
of his counsel, withdrew his original plea of not guilty and substituted it
with a plea of guilty.  This was done
after the prosecution had presented its evidence and rested its case.  So Villar’s guilt
is not here in question.  In fact in his
brief, it is admitted:  “There is no
doubt that appellant, who pleaded guilty is the perpetrator of the crime
charged.” In a decision dated March
30, 1979, Villar was sentenced as follows:

“WHEREFORE, premises considered, the Court finds the accused
FRANCISCO VILLAR guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of MURDER without any aggravating or
mitigating circumstances and hereby sentences him to Reclusion Perpetua, to indemnify the heirs of the deceased victim in
the sum of Twelve Thousand
(P12,000.00) Pesos, and to pay the costs.”

This appeal is based on a sole assignment of error:  “THAT THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN NOT
CONSIDERING MINORITY OF APPELLANT AS PRIVILEGED MITIGATING CIRCUMSTANCE.”

After he had changed his plea to one of guilty, the trial court
permitted Villar to present evidence to prove his
claim of minority as a privileged mitigating circumstance.

Villar’s evidence consisted of the
following:

1.   Exhibit 1 which is a certified true copy of a
Certificate of Live Birth.  (Expediente, p. 237.) This
exhibit states that Francisco Villar was born on October 26, 1961.  It
is noted, however, that the certificate was prepared and submitted by Leonor Villar, Francisco’s
mother, only on January 12, 1979, or more than 17 years after the date when Francisco was said to have been born and 4 days before he
changed his plea.

2.   Leonor Villar, Francisco’s mother, identified Exhibit 1 and stated
that Francisco was born in Caloocan
City on October 26, 1961.  She said that Francisco was baptized at the Espiritu Santo Church
in Manila on December 25, 1961, and that she had a copy of his baptismal
certificate but gave it to a person called Eddie who never returned it.  (The defense promised to submit a copy of the
birth certificate at a later hearing but none appears to have been submitted.)

3.   Francisco Villar
himself said he was born on October
26, 1961; that Exhibit 1 is his birth certificate; and that when he
committed the crime he “was only 15 years going to 16 years.”

4.   Evelyn Villar,
sister of Francisco, said that she was born on April 22, 1960, while Francisco was born on October 26, 1961.

5.   Manuel Villar,
brother of Francisco, said that Evelyn Villar is his
sister who was born on April 22, 1960,
while Francisco Villar is his brother who was born on
October 26, 1961.

On the part of the prosecution it relies on Exhibit E (Expediente, p. 191) which is the sworn statement of
Francisco given on August 25, 1977, and which reads in part:

x x x                 x x x                 x x x

“T –  Ano
ang pangalan mo at iba pang mahalagang bagay ukol sa
iyong pagkatao?

 S –  FRANCISCO VILLAR Y DAGUISO, Alias Boyet,
22 na taon gulang, binata, walang trabajo, tubo sa Caloocan
at nakatira sa bilang 632-Dau St., 5th Ave., G.P., Cal-Metro Mla.”

x x x                 x x x                 x x x

Francisco, on the witness stand, admitted making the statement
quoted above but denied giving his age as 22
years; he claimed that when the police asked about his age he said he
was born on October 26, 1961.

Whether or not Exhibit E was executed voluntarily by Francisco is
not in issue insofar as the determination of his age is concerned.  He has pleaded guilty to the crime which he owned in Exhibit E and during the
hearing on his plea of minority he did not impugn said exhibit.  In fact, he admitted its execution and his
only claim in relation thereto is that he did not give his age as 22 years but
instead gave his date of birth.

In the resolution of the sole assignment of error we find as
well-taken and accordingly adopt as our own the lower court’s ratiocination,
thus:

“After going over the evidence in support of the alleged
minority of the accused Francisco Villar when he
committed the crime on or about August
24, 1977, the Court finds that Exhibit 1 and the testimonies of the defense witnesses can not have more
probative value than the written statement of Francisco Villar,
Exhibit E.  It is to be noted that
Exhibit 1 is a delayed registration of a supposed birth accomplished and
submitted only on January 12, 1979 to the Local Civil Registrar of Caloocan City by the witness Leonor
Villar, long after the offense was committed and
after the prosecution finally rested its case on November 21, 1978, thus
exposing the basis of Exhibit 1 to be resting on a slender and shaky
foundation, and more so, in the absence of explanation from the defense of the
reason for said late registration. 
Hence, the Court rejects Exhibit 1. 
Nor could the testimonies of the accused’s
brother and sister be given credit it appearing from their own declaration that
the eldest of the two is only 18 years old and, therefore, could not have been
testifying on facts from their own personal knowledge, for obvious reason.  Exhibit E on the other hand, was duly signed
and sworn to by the accused on August 25, 1977, a day after the commission of the offense,
at the time when the said accused has no opportunity to fabricate a deliberate falsehoods. 
And considering that Exhibit E is replete with details reciting the true
sequence of events which can only be furnished by the declarant-accused
who has experienced the same or taken part in the execution of the acts
narrated and may not be furnished by the investigators, the number of years (22
years old) stated by the accused Francisco Villar to
be his age on August 25, 1977, was given spontaneously and voluntarily.”

The appellant invokes Art. 410 of the Civil Code which reads:

“Art. 410. 
The books making up the civil register and all documents relating
thereto shall be considered public documents and shall be prima facie evidence
of the facts therein contained.”

Suffice it to say that the above-quoted provision makes the
information given in Exhibit 1 only prima facie but not
conclusive evidence.  This must be so
because the Local Civil Registrar merely receives the information submitted to
him; he does not inquire into its veracity. 
Moreover, to regard as conclusive the content of a certificate of live birth can lead to absurd results.  Supposing that Leonor
had given John F. Kennedy as the father of Francisco, are we to accept
that as an incontestable fact?  In the
light of the circumstances already
narrated concerning the preparation and submission of Exhibit 1, the lower
court committed no error in disregarding it.

WHEREFORE, finding no error to have been committed with
respect to the appealed judgment, the same is hereby affirmed in its
entirety.  No pronouncement as to costs.

SO ORDERED.

Barredo, (Chairman), Aquino, Fernandez, and
De Castro, JJ., concur.