NO. The Allegation for rape is untenable.

Alberto cannot be held liable for the crime of

rape by carnal knowledge, alleged by the complainant Bernadette.

Before we further go into detail, A review of the facts as described by the complainant is
as follows:
Alberto (Accused) married Ysabel (Complainant’s mother) on
December 9, 2010. Ysabel had 2 daughters from her prior marriage at the
time of the celebration, Beth (12yrs old) and Bernadette(15 yrs old).

The accused, being a lawyer and managing partner of his lawfirm,

is known to to go to their Davao Office on Thursday and Friday, and returns
Saturday or Sunday.

On July 16 2013, While her mother (Ysabel) left for Davao on a

business trip, was when the rape occurred. When Bernadette went home,
she did not know that the accused (Alberto) was also there, because his
car was not parked in the garage. Alberto, using a gun, threatened to kill
her and her mother. Although she fought back, Alberto was successful in
consummating the rape. He then left after the act and called Franco, her
boyfriend. He brought her to the hospital.

Bernadette informed Ysabel that Alberto made several attempts in

the past. This was the reason why she slept in her friend’s house every time
she is informed of her mother’s out-of-town trips. According to
Bernadette, this was not the first time that the accused had been
successful with her. Soonafter, Bernadette became pregnant.

Upon this knowledge, Ysabel confronted Alberto, regarding the

rape of her daughter, but he rudely and angrily denied.

The defense of the accused rests on the following alibis:

He was in Davao during on his regular visits.

It could have been Franco, Bernadette’s boyfriend.
he didn’t have a gun.

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

According to Article 266-A1 of the Revised Penal Code, as amended by R.A. 8353, rape is
committed by a man who shall have carnal knowledge of a woman through force, threat, or
intimidation.

1
Article 266-A. Rape: When And How Committed. - Rape is committed:
1) By a man who shall have carnal knowledge of a woman under any of the following circumstances:
 In order to establish Alberto’s criminal liability, the elements of rape must be proven
beyond reasonable doubt. The elements of rape are the following: (1) that there was carnal
knowledge, and in this case, (2) The said act was accomplished through threat and intimidation.

The basic element that should be proven in cases of rape, is the carnal knowledge,
which is also the pertinent issue we wish to resolve.

In People Vs Cruz2, The Court defined Carnal knowledge simply as "the act of a man
having sexual bodily connections with a woman, to wit:

The basic element of rape then and now is carnal knowledge of a female.
Carnal knowledge is defined simply as "the act of a man having sexual bodily
connections with a woman," which explains why the slightest penetration of the
female genitalia consummates the rape. In other words, rape is consummated
once the penis capable of consummating the sexual act touches the external
genitalia of the female.

The prosecution must prove beyond reasonable doubt that carnal knowledge had
occurred with viable evidence, and not just with scant facts.

Though it is true that there is a Physical possibility of Alberto and Bernadette being in
the same city, being that July 16 2013 is a Tuesday and Alberto does not go to Davao until
Thursday, it is not conclusive that there was carnal knowledge. Just because two people are in
close proximity, does not amount to the sexual bodily connections required to establish rape.
We consider the generalization to be a jump in logic. The circumstance of being in the same
city, is but a weakness in the alibi of the accused, as such, In People vs Borromeo3 the court
states that:

xxxx this Court concludes that the weakness of the accused's defense of alibi,
which the Solicitor General stresses to further bolster the case for the
prosecution, is entirely irrelevant. Since the prosecution has failed to prove the
accused's guilt beyond reasonable doubt, he is, as a matter of right, entitled to
an acquittal.

a) Through force, threat, or intimidation;

b) When the offended party is deprived of reason or otherwise unconscious;
c) By means of fraudulent machination or grave abuse of authority; and
d) When the offended party is under twelve (12) years of age or is demented, even though
none of the circumstances mentioned above be present.
2) By any person who, under any of the circumstances mentioned in paragraph 1 hereof, shall commit an
act of sexual assault by inserting his penis into another person's mouth or anal orifice, or any instrument
or object, into the genital or anal orifice of another person.
2
G.R. No. 166441, October 8, 2014
3
G.R. No. 91734. March 30, 1993.
 It is a time-honored principle that the accused enjoys the presumption of innocence.
Because of this, the burden of proof lies in the prosecution to prove that carnal knowledge did
occur with evidence beyond reasonable doubt. Without such, the presumption of innocence in
favor of the accused herein was not overcome.

In Patula vs People4, and again reminded in People vs Claro5:

x x x in all criminal prosecutions, the Prosecution bears the burden

to establish the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt. In
discharging this burden, the Prosecution's duty is to prove each and every
element of the crime charged in the information to warrant a finding of
guilt for that crime or for any other crime necessarily included therein. The
Prosecution must further prove the participation of the accused in the
commission of the offense. In doing all these, the Prosecution must rely
on the strength of its own evidence, and not anchor its success upon the
weakness of the evidence of the accused. The burden of proof placed on
the Prosecution arises from the presumption of innocence in favor of the
accused that no less than the Constitution has guaranteed. Conversely, as
to his innocence, the accused has no burden of proof, that he must then be
acquitted and set free should the Prosecution not overcome the
presumption of innocence in his favor. In other words, the weakness of the
defense put up by the accused is inconsequential in the proceedings for as
long as the Prosecution has not discharged its burden of proof in
establishing the commission of the crime charged and in identifying the
accused as the malefactor responsible for it.

In every criminal case, the accused is entitled to acquittal unless his guilt is shown
beyond reasonable doubt. Proof beyond reasonable doubt does not mean such a degree of
proof as, excluding possibility of error, produces absolute certainty. Only moral certainty is
required, or that degree of proof which produces conviction in an unprejudiced mind.6

Again, as we are reminded in People vs Claro:

In the face of all the foregoing, we have reasonable doubt of the guilt of the accused for rape.
Reasonable doubt –

x x x is not mere possible doubt; because everything relating to human affairs,

and depending on moral evidence, is open to some possible or imaginary

4
G.R. No. 164457, April 11, 2012, 669 SCRA 135

5
G.R. No. 199894, April 5, 2017

6
Section 2, Rule 133 of the Rules of Court
 doubt. It is that state of the case which, after the entire comparison and
consideration of all the evidence, leaves the minds of jurors in such a condition
that they cannot say they feel an abiding conviction, to a moral certainty, of
the truth of the charge. The burden of proof is upon the prosecutor. All the
presumptions of law independent of evidence are in favor of innocence; and
every person is presumed to be innocent until he is proved guilty. If upon such
proof there is reasonable doubt remaining, the accused is entitled to the
benefit of it by an acquittal. For it is not sufficient to establish a probability,
though a strong one arising from the doctrine of chances, that the fact charged
is more likely to be true than the contrary; but the evidence must establish the
truth of the fact to a reasonable and moral certainty; a certainty that convinces
and directs the understanding and satisfies the reason and judgment of those
who are bound to act conscientiously upon it. This we take to be proof beyond
reasonable doubt; because if the law, which mostly depends upon
considerations of a moral nature, should go further than this, and require
absolute certainty, it would exclude circumstantial evidence altogether.7

The fact that Bernadette is pregnant, is also not at all conclusive of the carnal
knowledge with Alberto. Considering that Bernadette at the time was in a romantic relationship
with a certain Franco. Also, since this is not an element of rape that the prosecution must prove
to overcome presumption. The question of the fetus’ paternity is subject for review as well,
which in this case, is not the point of the matter, and to further discuss would digress.

With all the stated above, we are not convinced of the allegation that Alberto by means
of force and intimidation with the a gun, did then and there wilfully, unlawfully and feloniously
have carnal knowledge of the complainant Bernadette.

7
Shaw, C. J., in Commonwealth v. Webster, 5 Cush. (Mass.) 320, 52 Am. Dec. 711 cited in People vs Claro, G.R. No.
199894, April 5, 2017