FACTS:

The accused, Carlito Claro, was charged with rape allegedly committed on March 14, 2006. According to the information filed against him, the accused invited the victim, AAA, to meet him and took her to a motel under the pretext of talking and eating. Inside the motel room, the accused forcibly had sexual intercourse with AAA against her will. The prosecution presented AAA's testimony and medical examination report showing injuries on her body. The accused denied the allegations and claimed that they were in a consensual relationship. The mother of the accused testified that AAA requested her to offer a bribe in exchange for dropping the charges. The RTC found the accused guilty beyond reasonable doubt of rape.

The accused appealed to the SC, arguing that there was no proof beyond reasonable doubt that he committed rape. Both the accused and AAA had contradictory versions of whether rape or consensual sex occurred between them. It was established that they willingly met on a planned lovers' date, went to a restaurant, and discussed checking in at a motel. They entered the motel together without apparent resistance from AAA. AAA's credibility as a witness was regarded by both the RTC and CA. The SC noted that being lovers does not exempt the accused from criminal liability for rape, but the established circumstances suggested consensual sex rather than forced rape. Therefore, the SC acquitted the accused on the ground of reasonable doubt.

ISSUES:

1. Whether the accused and the complainant engaged in consensual sexual intercourse.

2. Whether the medico-legal findings of bruises and abrasions on the complainant prove the presence of force or harm.

3. Whether the reasonable doubt standard is constitutionally required in criminal proceedings.

4. Whether the Due Process Clause protects the accused against conviction except upon proof beyond a reasonable doubt of every fact necessary to constitute the crime with which he is charged.

5. Whether the guilt of the accused was proven beyond reasonable doubt.

RULING:

1. The court has reasonable doubt as to the guilt of the accused for rape. The court emphasized that the burden of proof lies with the prosecutor to establish guilt beyond reasonable doubt. The court found that there were circumstances that indicated the consensuality of the sexual intercourse, such as the agreement to go on a lovers' date, traveling together, and entering the motel without protest. The presence of abrasions and contusions on the complainant's body did not automatically prove the absence of consensuality, as these could also arise during voluntary submission. The court concluded that the findings did not justify the rejection of consensuality.

2. Yes, proof of a criminal charge beyond a reasonable doubt is constitutionally required. The reasonable-doubt standard plays a vital role in the American scheme of criminal procedure. It is a prime instrument for reducing the risk of convictions resting on factual error and provides substance to the presumption of innocence. The requirement of proof beyond a reasonable doubt is indispensable in ensuring fundamental fairness and protecting the good name and freedom of every individual. It imposes a burden on the prosecution to convince the factfinder of the accused's guilt.

3. Yes, the Due Process Clause protects the accused against conviction except upon proof beyond a reasonable doubt of every fact necessary to constitute the crime with which he is charged. Requiring proof of guilt beyond reasonable doubt is essential to command the respect and confidence of the community in applications of the criminal law. It ensures that innocent individuals are not wrongly condemned and that individuals can have confidence in their government's ability to adjudge guilt only with utmost certainty.

4. The accused is acquitted for failure to prove his guilt beyond reasonable doubt.

PRINCIPLES:

• The accused is entitled to acquittal unless guilt is proved beyond reasonable doubt.

• Proof beyond reasonable doubt requires a degree of proof that produces conviction in an unprejudiced mind.

• The burden of proof lies with the prosecutor.

• All presumptions of law are in favor of innocence, and a person is presumed innocent until proven guilty.

• The requirement of establishing guilt beyond reasonable doubt is a long-standing principle in criminal proceedings.

• Proof of a criminal charge beyond a reasonable doubt is constitutionally required.

• The reasonable doubt standard is a prime instrument for reducing the risk of convictions resting on factual error and provides substance to the presumption of innocence.

• The requirement of proof beyond a reasonable doubt is indispensable in ensuring fundamental fairness and protecting the good name and freedom of every individual.

• The Due Process Clause protects the accused against conviction except upon proof beyond a reasonable doubt of every fact necessary to constitute the crime with which he is charged.

• Requiring proof of guilt beyond reasonable doubt is essential to command the respect and confidence of the community in applications of the criminal law.

• Mere suspicion of the guilt of the accused, no matter how strong, should not sway judgment against him.

• Accusation is not synonymous with guilt; every circumstance favoring the accused's innocence should be fully taken into account.

• In all criminal prosecutions, the prosecution bears the burden to establish the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt.

• The prosecution must prove each and every element of the crime charged and the participation of the accused in the commission of the offense.

• The weakness of the defense put up by the accused is inconsequential as long as the prosecution has not discharged its burden of proof.