AA, a twelve-year-old girl, while walking alone met BB, a teenage boy who befriended her. Later, BB brought AA to a nearby shanty where he raped her. The Information for rape filed against BB states:

"On or about October 30, 2015, in the City of S.P. and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the accused, a minor, fifteen (15) years old with lewd design and by means of force, violence and intimidation, did then and there, willfully, unlawfully and feloniously had sexual intercourse with AA, a minor, twelve (12) years old against the latter's will and consent."

At the trial, the prosecutor called to the witness stand AA as his first witness and manifested that he be allowed to ask leading questions in conducting his direct examination pursuant to the Rule on the Examination of a Child Witness. BB's counsel objected on the ground that the prosecutor has not conducted a competency examination on the witness, a requirement before the rule cited can be applied in the case.

A. Is BB's counsel, correct?

In order to obviate the counsel's argument on the competency of AA as prosecution witness, the judge motu proprio conducted his voir dire examination on AA.

B. Was the action taken by the judge proper? After the prosecution had rested its case BBs counsel filed with leave demurrer to evidence seeking the dismissal of the case on the ground that the prosecutor failed to present any evidence on BBs minority as alleged in the information.

C. Should the court grant the demurrer?