G.R. No. 139236 - People vs. Antivola

This case is an automatic review of the Decision of the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Malolos, Bulacan, Branch 78.
The RTC had convicted the appellant, Rodel Antivola, of qualified rape and sentenced him to suffer the death penalty.
The Information was filed on March 25, 1998, charging the appellant with qualified rape.

The Information charged that on or about December 4, 1997, in the Municipality of Angat, Bulacan, Rodel Antivola, by means of violence and intimidation, unlawfully had carnal knowledge of the victim, Rachel M. de Guzman, a five-year-old minor, against her will and consent.
Rachel de Guzman was playing outside with other children when she encountered the appellant near a fishpond; she recognized him as “aBungi.”
The appellant allegedly invited her inside his house on the pretense of playing a game.
Once inside, he removed her shorts, proceeded to touch her private parts, and then allegedly inserted his penis into her vagina, causing her severe pain.

After the incident, Rachel went home without informing anyone immediately; her mother, Sally de Guzman, later noticed marks on her daughter’s clothing and a reddish discoloration on Rachel’s private parts.
When questioned, Rachel identified the appellant as her assailant, which prompted Sally to file a police report.
Subsequent to the incident, a sworn statement was executed by Sally and a medico-legal examination was performed by Dr. Manuel C. Aves, who reported fresh superficial lacerations on the victim’s hymen at multiple positions.

Rachel de Guzman, who gave a detailed and candid testimony about the incident.
Sally de Guzman, Rachel’s mother, who observed the aftermath and provided a sworn statement.
Dr. Manuel C. Aves, whose medico-legal report provided physical evidence supporting the victim’s account.

The defense, led by the appellant’s counsel de oficio, presented the appellant himself along with two other witnesses, Marites Capalad and Ruben Nicolas.
The appellant’s defense included:

Denial of the charge, claiming that he only touched the victim’s private parts.
Assertion that any allegation of penetration was the result of coaching by the victim’s family.
A denial of knowing the nickname “aBungi” and a claim that the charge was fabricated due to personal enmity over employment choices regarding the fishpond.

Corroborative testimonies by co-workers and neighbors (including Ruben Nicolas and Marites Capalad) attempted to establish an alibi for the appellant, having him present at the fishpond during the pertinent time.
The prosecution, however, noted inconsistencies and inadequacies in the alibi, pointing out the physical proximity of the fishpond and the appellant’s house, making it plausible that he could have committed the crime.
The reliability of the victim’s identification was upheld due to the spontaneity, detail, and consistency of her testimony.

The trial court originally sentenced the appellant to death on conviction for qualified rape under Articles 266-A and 266-B of Republic Act No. 8353 (Anti-Rape Law of 1997), in relation to Republic Act No. 7610, which provides special protection for children.
The appellant challenged both his conviction and the imposition of the death penalty, arguing a failure of the prosecution to fully prove his guilt beyond reasonable doubt, and especially contended that the victim’s age (a critical qualifying element for the imposition of the death penalty) was not conclusively established since her birth certificate was not presented as evidence.

Whether the prosecution was able to establish the appellant’s guilt beyond reasonable doubt despite his denials and the defense’s alibi.
Whether the victim’s testimony, corroborated by physical evidence and post-incident conduct, was sufficient to prove that rape was committed as charged.

Whether the evidence presented was sufficient to conclusively establish that the victim, Rachel de Guzman, was under seven years of age at the time of the rape—a critical element for convicting the appellant of qualified rape subject to the death penalty.
Whether the absence of the victim’s birth certificate or similar authenticated documents impacted the imposition of the death penalty.

Whether the defense’s evidence and corroboration offered in support of the appellant’s alibi were credible and sufficient to establish that he was not present at the scene of the crime.