FACTS:

Ron Ron San Pedro appealed his conviction for rape under Article 266-A of the Revised Penal Code. The charge was based on the allegation that he had non-consensual sexual intercourse with AAA, a 19-year-old deaf and mute woman. The prosecution presented testimonies from AAA, AAA's mother, the investigating officer, and the medico-legal officer, while the defense presented Ron Ron and his live-in partner as witnesses. AAA's medico-legal examination revealed injuries in her genital area, including a fresh laceration on her hymen. The defense also presented documentary exhibits, such as the sworn complaint of AAA, sworn statement of AAA's mother, and the medico-legal report.

Ron Ron admitted to having sexual intercourse with AAA but claimed it was consensual. They had known each other for years and communicated through various means. They went out together, drank, and eventually had sexual intercourse. However, Ron Ron claimed that he realized what was happening and stopped. AAA became upset when Ron Ron mentioned telling his partner about the incident, and he allegedly put a knife to his own neck. Ron Ron's partner testified that she saw him, AAA, and another person leaving together that night. AAA admitted to having sexual intercourse with Ron Ron. AAA later apologized to Ron Ron's partner for what she had done. The defense offered a police blotter indicating that AAA had agreed to withdraw her complaint as evidence to support their claim.

AAA alleged that she was raped by Ron Ron while she was unconscious. She testified that her consent was not freely obtained and displayed an honest demeanor. The allegation was supported by the testimonies of the Medico-Legal Officer and the Medico-Legal Report. The defense argued that AAA consented to the sexual intercourse, but the court found this defense incredulous and unreasonable given AAA's unwavering testimony and the presence of extragenital injuries. The trial court found Ron Ron guilty of rape and sentenced him to Reclusion Perpetua, which was affirmed by the CA with modifications. Both parties appealed to the Supreme Court.

ISSUES:

1. Whether the elements of rape by sexual intercourse were established beyond reasonable doubt.

2. Whether the testimony of the complainant is clear, definite, and convincing.

3. Whether AAA was able to give and communicate her consent to the sexual act.

4. Whether AAA signed the police blotter entry under force or duress.

5. Whether AAA's mother demanded the filing of a complaint against Ron Ron.

6. Whether AAA decided not to press charges in relation to the incident in question because it was a mere "misunderstanding" between her and Ron Ron.

7. Whether Matet's testimony, which was presented in Ron Ron's defense, is credible and carries great weight.

8. Whether the medico-legal findings corroborate Matet's version of the altercation involving the knife.

9. Whether the sexual encounter between the accused and the victim was non-consensual.

10. Whether the prosecution was able to prove the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt.

RULING:

1. The Court held that the elements of rape by sexual intercourse were not proven beyond reasonable doubt, as there was a lack of evidence to establish that the accused used force or intimidation during the sexual act.

2. The Court emphasized that the testimony of the complainant in rape cases should be scrutinized with extreme caution. In this case, the testimony of the complainant was not clear, definite, and convincing, thereby weakening the prosecution's evidence.

3. The court concludes that the prosecution was unable to establish Ron Ron's guilt beyond reasonable doubt. There are material circumstances on record that create reasonable suspicion as to the non-consensuality of the sexual encounter.

4. AAA admitted that she was assisted by the police in signing the blotter entry. However, her intellectual capacities were not assailed by the prosecution, and the prosecution failed to prove that AAA signed the blotter entry under force or duress.

5. AAA categorically admitted that her mother demanded the filing of a complaint against Ron Ron after learning about the incident. This is corroborated by her mother's testimony.

6. Based on the testimonies on record, it is clear that AAA initially decided not to press charges because she viewed the incident as a "misunderstanding" between her and Ron Ron. It was only due to the insistence of her mother, BBB, that AAA returned to the police station to re-file her complaint.

7. Matet's testimony is considered credible and carries great weight due to her close emotional ties with both the accused and the complainant. Her testimony dovetails perfectly with that of AAA and fills in the details missed by AAA about the confrontation at Matet's house.

8. The medico-legal findings corroborate Matet's version of the altercation involving the knife. AAA sustained injuries on her hands that are consistent with being restrained by Ron Ron during a struggle for control of the knife. The injuries, such as swelling, abrasion, and contusion, are indicative of blunt force or pressure being applied to AAA's hands.

9. The Court held that there is reasonable doubt as to whether the sexual encounter between the accused and the victim was non-consensual. The conflicting accounts from both parties as to who was holding the knife and why the accused produced it made it impossible for the Court to determine the precise chain of events leading to the struggle. The defendant's wife testified that the victim apologized for what she did to the accused, and this testimony was not rebutted by the prosecution.

10. The Court found that the prosecution was not able to prove the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt. The circumstances presented in the case created reasonable doubt as to the guilt of the accused. The Court emphasized that the prosecution must prove its affirmative allegations and that the evidence must transcend all reasonable doubt in order to sustain a conviction for the grave personal violation of rape.

PRINCIPLES:

• An accusation for rape can be easily made but difficult to prove, placing a heavier burden on the accused to disprove it.

• The testimony of the complainant in rape cases is subject to careful scrutiny due to the nature of the crime.

• The evidence for the prosecution should stand or fall on its own merits and should not draw strength from the weaknesses of the defense.

• Consent to sexual intercourse goes beyond the physical act and encompasses the psychological and moral dispositions of the parties involved. It involves the autonomy and freely made choice of the individuals.

• Full and genuine consent to sex requires the ability to have the intellectual resources and capacity to make a choice that reflects one's judgments and values.

• The ability to give and communicate consent may be affected by specific personal circumstances, such as a person's method of communication.

• The prosecution has the burden of proving the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt.

• In cases of alleged sexual assault, the credibility of the victim's testimony is crucial in determining the guilt or innocence of the accused.

• A complainant's decision not to press charges can be influenced by external factors, such as the insistence of family members. (Issue 1)

• Testimony from a witness who has close emotional ties to both the accused and the complainant may carry great weight and credibility. (Issue 2)

• Medico-legal findings can corroborate testimonies and provide evidence of the occurrence of specific events, such as altercations. (Issue 3)

• The state policy on the offense of rape is clear and unmistakable. Rape is an intrusion into the right of privacy and an assault on human dignity. The seriousness of the offense calls for extreme care on the part of the judiciary to avoid an injustice on the accused.

• The prosecution has the burden of proving the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt. If a reasonable doubt exists, the verdict must be one of acquittal.