Title
People vs. Antivola
Case
G.R. No. 139236
Decision Date
Feb 3, 2004
A 5-year-old girl was lured and raped by appellant, who denied the act. Medical evidence supported the victim’s testimony. The Supreme Court convicted appellant of rape but reduced the penalty to reclusion perpetua due to insufficient proof of the victim’s age.

Case Summary (G.R. No. 139236)

Charge and Trial

On March 25, 1998, an Information was filed against Rodel Antivola, charging him with qualified rape under Article 266-A and 266-B of Republic Act No. 8353, the Anti-Rape Law of 1997. The incident was alleged to have occurred on December 4, 1997, when Rachel was unlawfully and forcibly subjected to carnal knowledge, contrary to law. During his arraignment on April 13, 1998, Antivola pleaded not guilty, leading to the subsequent trial.

The Prosecution's Evidence

The prosecution's case was anchored on the testimony of the victim Rachel, her mother, and a medico-legal officer. Rachel, who was 5 years old at the time, testified that Antivola touched her private parts, and later penetrated her vagina, causing her pain. Her mother, Sally, reported the incident to the police and got Rachel examined by Dr. Manuel Aves, whose findings revealed multiple superficial lacerations on Rachel's hymen, supporting the sexual assault claim.

The Defense's Argument

Antivola's defense centered on arguing that he was not guilty of consummated rape, asserting that the victim's testimony was influenced by her mother's coaching. He provided an alibi, claiming he was at work during the time of the incident. Witnesses testified to corroborate his alibi, stating he was at the fishpond throughout the afternoon of December 4.

Trial Court's Decision

The trial court ultimately found Antivola guilty, affirming Rachel's testimony as credible and coherent. It ruled that Antivola's defenses of mistake of identity, denial, and alibi were insubstantial, concluding that the prosecution's evidence established his guilt beyond reasonable doubt. Antivola was sentenced to death.

Appellant's Arguments on Appeal

Antivola challenged the trial court’s decision on two primary grounds: (1) that the prosecution failed to prove his guilt beyond reasonable doubt; and (2) that his age was not properly established, which was critical for the imposition of the death penalty.

Court's Analysis on the Sufficiency of Evidence

The appellate court emphasized that the testimony of the victim, particularly a minor, carries significant weight. It also noted that in cases of alleged rape, the burden of proving the accused's guilt lies with the prosecution. The detail and spontaneity of Rachel's testimony contributed to its credibility, overshadowing the appellant's claims of alternative explanations for her injuries.

Examination of the Victim's Age

A crucial aspect of the case revolved around the proper proof of Rachel's age and whether it met the qualifications for imposing the death penalty. The court highlighted that while the prosecution presented testimonies asserting Rachel was five

...continue reading

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.