Case Digest (G.R. No. 183097)
Case Digest (G.R. No. 183097)
Facts:
People of the Philippines v. Antonino Venturina, G.R. No. 183097, September 12, 2012, the Supreme Court Second Division, Del Castillo, J., writing for the Court. The appellee is People of the Philippines; the appellant is Antonino Venturina.On April 24, 2002, the victim (referred to as AAA), then 16 years old and the daughter of appellant, alleged that appellant raped her twice in the family’s nipa hut and thereafter near the chicken pen while her younger siblings slept nearby. AAA reported the incidents to relatives and to the police and executed a Sinumpaang Salaysay. Dr. Ivan Richard Viray examined AAA and prepared Medico-Legal Report MR-085-2002 documenting deep healed lacerations of the hymen at 3 and 9 o’clock positions and concluding the subject was in a non-virgin state though there were no external signs of trauma and smears were negative for spermatozoa.
Appellant was charged by two Informations with two counts of rape alleging (in both counts) that on or about April 24, 2002, appellant, the victim’s father, by force and intimidation had carnal knowledge of AAA, a minor, without her consent. Appellant denied the accusations, claiming he worked in the field that day, suffered chest pains and lost consciousness, and that any confession was coerced by police; he also claimed AAA left without permission and later returned. The Public Attorney’s Office summarized his defense as a flat denial and an assertion of police coercion.
The Regional Trial Court (RTC), Branch 85, Malolos, Bulacan, rendered a consolidated Decision dated May 12, 2005, finding appellant guilty beyond reasonable doubt of two counts of rape and sentencing him to death by lethal injection and ordering indemnity of P50,000.00 for each crime. On appeal, the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. CR-HC No. 01106 issued its October 23, 2007 Decision affirming with modification: it reduced the death sentence to reclusion perpetua without eligibility for parole, increased civil indemnity to P75,000.00, and awarded moral damages of P75,000.00 and exemplary damages of P25,000.00 for each case. Appellant sought further relief before the Supreme Court, challenging the CA’s decision principally on the ground that the prosecution failed to prove his guilt beyond reasonable doubt.
Issues:
- Did the prosecution prove appellant’s guilt beyond reasonable doubt so as to justify conviction for two counts of rape?
- If guilt is established, was the imposition of the death penalty proper and/or affected by statutory changes?
- Are the civil indemnity, moral and exemplary damages, and interest awards proper and in the proper amounts?
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)