Title
People vs. Venturina
Case
G.R. No. 183097
Decision Date
Sep 12, 2012
A father raped his 16-year-old daughter in a nipa hut, threatened her silence; medical evidence supported her testimony. Convicted, penalty modified to reclusion perpetua.
A

Case Digest (G.R. No. 183097)

Facts:

On April 24, 2002, Antonino Venturina was accused of raping his daughter, [AAA], a minor. The incident occurred inside a nipa hut in the field being cultivated by the girl’s father, where she was staying with her younger brothers [BBB] and [CCC], who were then sleeping. Her other brothers, [DDD] and [EEE], were reportedly in a nearby nipa hut about eight to ten meters away. At around eight o’clock in the evening, Venturina arrived at the hut, appearing drunk, unable to breathe properly, and crying; AAA massaged his chest until he stopped crying. He then embraced and kissed her on the cheeks, removed his clothes and AAA’s clothes, brassiere, and panty despite her resistance, and laid on top of her while inserting his penis into her vagina, causing pain and prompting her to cry. When AAA’s four-year old brother woke up, Venturina dragged her outside to the area near the chicken pen and continued the assault by inserting his penis into her vagina again, placing AAA’s legs on his shoulders, and licking her private organ. At daybreak, he stopped ravishing AAA and threatened her not to tell anyone, claiming he would go to his wife, AAA’s mother, to ask for money to pay the electric bill. AAA then left and reported the incident to her sister [FFF], and the matter was reported to the police where AAA executed a Sinumpaang Salaysay. Dr. Ivan Richard Viray examined AAA and issued a Medico-Legal Report MR-085-2002, finding, among others, that AAA was in a non-virgin state physically and that there were deep healed lacerations in the hymen at the three and nine o’clock positions, with no external signs of trauma. Based on AAA’s complaint, Venturina was charged with two counts of rape in Informations alleging, among others, that AAA was sixteen (16) years old and that Venturina was her father. During trial, Venturina denied the charges, asserted that AAA left home without permission, claimed he was working and only went home earlier, stated that due to chest pains he fell on a wooden bed, and averred that he regained consciousness only at about four o’clock in the early morning and was later arrested and forced to admit the crime. The Regional Trial Court (RTC), Branch 85, Malolos, Bulacan, on May 12, 2005, found him guilty beyond reasonable doubt of two counts of rape and sentenced him to death by lethal injection in both cases, with civil indemnity of P50,000.00 for each crime. On appeal, the Court of Appeals (CA) on October 23, 2007 affirmed with modification: it reduced the penalty to reclusion perpetua without eligibility for parole, increased civil indemnity to P75,000.00, awarded moral damages of P75,000.00 and exemplary damages of P25,000.00 per case. Venturina then appealed to the Supreme Court, mainly arguing that the prosecution failed to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt due to issues of credibility.

Issues:

Whether the conviction of Antonino Venturina for two counts of rape—on the basis of AAA’s testimony and the corroborating medico-legal findings—was supported by proof beyond reasonable doubt, notwithstanding appellant’s denial and challenges to the credibility of the complainant.

Ruling:

  • (Subscriber-Only)

Ratio:

  • (Subscriber-Only)

Doctrine:

  • (Subscriber-Only)

Analyze Cases Smarter, Faster
Jur helps you analyze cases smarter to comprehend faster, building context before diving into full texts. AI-powered analysis, always verify critical details.