Normally, I’d agree. But Charo’s case is unusual. Her “younger” year of birth is almost certainly not true. She got it by appearing before a judge and claiming that there was a typo on her birth certificate. The judge apparently didn’t figure this was a big deal and gave an official ruling that her birth year was the year she was claiming. It’s not like anyone was disputing the claim and there was any issue revolving around it. The judge probably figured that if a woman wants to adjust her age downwards, who cares?
But the evidence says that Charo’s original birth year of 1941 is a lot more likely to be true than her official birth year of 1951. For example, she had graduated from high school and been working as a singer for several years when she got married in 1966 - something that seems incompatible with her supposedly being fifteen in that year.