PEOPLE OF THE PILIPPINES v.

ROGELIO DIVINAGRACIA, JR y DORNILA

G.R. No. 240230 November 28, 2019

FACTS

P03 Plopinio was informed that a certain Ensol (later on identified as Divinagracia) was selling marijuana. P03
Plopinio and the informant saw 2 persons standing near a parked van on the road and identified the man as
Divinagracia. P03 Plopinio claimed that when they approached Divinagracia, the latter replied “tamang tama
mayroon pang isang plastic itong kasama ko” Thereafter, P03 Plopinio handed the money. Immediately, after
the pre-arranged signal P03 Plopinio introduced himself as a policeman and arrested Divinagracia.

Both the accused-appellants and the seized items were taken to the PNP Crime Laboratory for examination.

For the defense, Sy testified that he alighted form a tricycle when he saw P02 Ocampo who was his former
arresting officer in a different case. Sy claimed that Ocampo demanded 20,000 from him. But when he replied
that he does not have the money, he was ordered to go with the latter. Thereafter, a vehicle suddenly parked
in front of them. He claimed that he did not know Divinagracia until he met him inside the vehicle.

Divingracia testified that he was walking from home when 4 persons approached him and introduced
themselves as police officers. He claimed that he was asked by the police officers if he was Nognog, and when
he told the police officers that he was not Nognog, he was asked by the police to go with them for verification.

The trial Court rendered a decision finding the accused-appellants guilty of illegal sale of dangerous drugs in
violation of Section 5, Article II of RA 9165. The CA affirmed the findings of the RTC.

ISSUE

Whether or not the accused-appellants are guilty beyond reasonable doubt of violation of Section 5, Article II
of RA 9165.

RULING

In the present case, it is disputed that the police officer failed to comply with the three-witness rule under
Section 21. The prosecution never hid the fact nor made any attempt to deny that only Kagawad Villar
witnessed the inventory of the confiscated items.

In this case, a justifiable reason for such failure or a showing of any genuine and sufficient effort to secure the
required witnesses under Section 21 must be adduced. Unfortunately, the prosecution did not do so. As a
matter of fact, it did not offer any explanation why representative from media and DOJ were not present at
the time of the seizure, as well as in the inventory and photographing of the same. Even the identification of
the seized evidence in court during the trial became ambiguous and unreliable, rendering the proof of the
links in the chain of custody of the corpus delicti unworthy of belief. The accused-appellants’ acquittal is
perforce in order.
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v XANDRA SANTOS y LITTAUA
G.R. No. 243627 November 27, 2019

FACTS

The prosecution alleged that operatives successfully conducted a buy-bust operation against accused-
appellant. When accused-appellant was searched after her arrest, police officers found one more plastic
sachet of the same substance from her possession. Officers immediately brought accused-appellant back to
police station where they marked, inventoried and photographed the seized items in her presence as well as
that of the Kagawad Robert.

In defense, accused-appellant denied the charges against her, claiming instead that, at the time of the
incident, while waiting for the tricycle that carried her grandchildren pf her live in partner’s mother to arrive,
she was accosted by several police officers in civilian clothes who forcibly brought her to a police station and
falsely made it appear that she had sold shabu.

The RTC found the accused guilty of the crimes Illegal Sale and Illegal Possession of Dangerous Drugs, under
Section 5 and 11 of RA 9165. The CA affirmed the conviction of the accused-appellant.

ISSUE

Whether or not the accused-appellant is guilty of the crimes charged.

RULING

Negative.

In cases for Illegal Sale and/or Illegal Possession of Dangerous Drugs under RA 9165, it is essential that the
identity of the dangerous drugs be established with moral certainty, considering that the drugs itself forms an
integral part of the corpus delicti of the crime. Failing to prove the integrity of the corpus delicti renders the
evidence for the State insufficient to prove the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt and hence,
warrants an acquittal.

As part of the chain of custody procedure, the law requires, that the marking, physical inventory and
photography of the seized items be conducted immediately after seizure and confiscation of the same. In this
regard, case law recognizes that marking upon immediate confiscation contemplates even marking at the
nearest police station or office of the apprehending team. Hence, the failure to immediately mark the
confiscated at the place of the arrest neither renders them inadmissible in evidence nor impairs the integrity
of the seized drugs, as the conduct of marking at the nearest police station or office of the apprehending team
is sufficient compliance with the rules on chain of custody.

Thus, mere statements of unavailability, absent actual serious attempts to contact thr required witnesses, are
unacceptable as justified grounds for non-compliance.
In this case, the arresting officers’ acts of performing the marking, inventory, and photography of the seized
items not at the place of arrest but at the police station were justified as a crowd was already forming at the
place of arrest. This notwithstanding, the Court observes that there was still a deviation from the witness
requirement as the conduct of inventory and photography was not witnessed by a representative from the
NPS or the media.
Accordingly, accused-appellant Xandra Santos y Littaua is ACQUITTED of the crimes charged.
CARLOS A. CATUBAO v SANDIGANBAYAN
G.R. No. 227371 October 2, 2019

FACTS

In 2007, estafa cases were filed against Ragasa. He hired Atty. Perito as his lawyer. For two years, the cases
remained unresolved prompting Atty. Perito to personally follow them up with the accused several times.
Accused Catubao asked him for pang inom whenever Atty. Perito makes a follow up. Before going on a
Christmas vacation, they again met and it as there that the accused said he needed money for he was leaving
for Samar.

While in Samar, accused Catubao called Atty. PErito asking any amount for a drinking session with his friends
and mentioned that 5,000 will do. Atty. Perito immediately informed Ragasa about it. Ragasa handed Atty
Perito said amount. Atty. Perito, however, ordered his secretary to send only 4,000 pesos to the accused.

Accused Catubao finally resolved the cases in favor of Ragasa. However, the resolution was denied by the
Chief Provincial Prosecutor.

Atty. Perito testified that the accused had once asked him to prepare the resolution . Accused Catubao
explained that he drafted one but was not accepted by the Chief Prosecutor who was not convinced that the
accused prepared it.

The version of the defense claimed that, Accused Catubao was assigned the estafa cases filed against Ragasa.
Accused explained that he had other cases to resolve that were submitted earlier than the estafa cases.
Sometime, Atty Periot approached him telling him that he left his wallet. He asked the accused for a favor
since he needed to go home. The accused gave him 1,000 pesos. Atty. Perito informed the accused of his
payment, he expected to receive 1,000 pesos but Atty. Perito sent him 4,000 pesos and asked him why. Atty.
Perito replied that he was just repaying the favor that accused extended to him and that he also won a case.

After trial on the merits, accused Catubao is found guilty beyond reasonable doubt for violation of Article 210
of the Revised Penal Code. The Sandiganbayan ruled that all elements of the crime had been sufficiently
proved; that based on the evidence, Catubao solicited and received a gift from Atty. Perito to expedite the
resolution of the estafa cases of Ragasa pending before him. Thus, Catubao received a gift in consideration for
doing an act, though not constituting a crime in itself, but was related to the exercise of his functions as a
public officer.

ISSUE

Whether or not the Sandiganbayan erred in convicting Catubao of the crime of Direct Bribery.

RULING

The Court acquits Catubao of the crime of Direct Bribery because of reasonable doubt.

To recall, the crime of direct bribery as defined in Article 210 of the RPC consists of the following elements: (1)
that the accused is a public officer; (2) the he received directly or through another some gift or present, offer
or promise; (3) that such gift, present, promise has been given in consideration of his commission of some
crime or any act not constituting a crime or to refrain from doing something which is his official duty to do;
and (4)that the crime or act related to the exercise of his functions as a public officer.
In this case, all the elements were present except the third element. The third element of the crime requires
that such gift, present, promise has been given in consideration of his commission of some crime or any act
not constituting a crime or to refrain from doing something which is his official duty to do.

In the present case, the Court holds that the testimonies of the prosecution witnesses failed to establish
beyond reasonable doubt the third element. This is so because the testimonies of the prosecution witnesses
were so marred by inconsistencies that they are no longer believable.

Here, the prosecution clearly failed to discharge its duty. Not only is the prosecution’s version unable to stand
on its own; worse, the version of the defense , in fact, is more believable all things considered.

In sum, for failure of the prosecution to establish all the elements of the crime of Direct Bribery beyond
reasonable doubt, Catubao must thus be acquitted of the charge.
 PEOPLE OF THE PILIPPINES v. NOLI VILLEGAS, JR y LACRETE
G.R. No. 218210 October 9, 2019

FACTS

Victim AAA, asked permission from her mother, BBB to go ith Villegas to visit a friend but BBB did not allow
AAA but thereafter noticed that her daughter was no longer in their house.

At 8 o’clock in the evening, BBB got worried when she noticed that AAA was still not home. BBB went to look
for AAA but to no avail. She then asked for the help of one of the children of her neighbor and her daughter.
Thereafter, about eight meters on their way out of Catalan’s house, they noticed sledge prints leading to the
abandoned house of Antonio Lacrete. Upon reaching the abandoned house, they entered through the slightly
opened door and found a white tshirt, a pair of black slippers and a pair of slippers belonging to AAA. They
also noticed blood stains on the bamboo floor. Thereafter, BBB together with CCC and Jun-jun went to the
Barangay to report the incident.

BBB was informed by a certain Nico that AAA’s body was found dumped in a pond along the rice field.

Villegas, accompanied by his father, surrendered to the authorities. He insisted that, he and AAA were
sweethearts. He averred that Catalan asked him how to borrow palay and that he stayed at the house of his
uncle due to heavy rains.

The RTC found that the circumstantial evidence adduced by the prosecution all point to VIllrgas and to no
other perpetrator of the crime. In all the foregoing, the court hereby finds the accused guilty beyond
reasonable doubt of the crime of Rape with Homicide. The CA affirmed the trial court’s decision.

ISSUE

Whether or not the accused is guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime Rape with Homicide.

RULING

Affirmed.

Rape with Homicide is a special complex crime of two or more crimes that the law treats as a single indivisible
offense for being the product of a single criminal impulse. The elements of the special complex crime of rape
with homicide are as follows; (1) the appellant had carnal knowledge of a woman; (2) carnal knowledge of a
woman was achieved by means of force, threat or intimidation; and (3) by reason or on occasion of such
carnal knowledge by means of force, threat, or intimidation, the appellant killed the woman.

In this case, the post mortem examination of AAA’s body revealed that she had the lacerations on her private
parts and the she recently lost her virginity, which more likely meant that the assailant had carnal knowledge
of her. Moreover, the contusions, abrasions, and injuries on her body more importantly the head injury,
signify that such carnal knowledge was achieve by means of force and intimidation which eventually led to
AAA’s death. The testimonies of the medico-legal as well as those of the other prosecution witnesses, when
considered together, inevitably lead to the conclusion that Villegas committed the felony.
In conclusion, we hereby affirm Villegas’s conviction as it qas proven beyond reasonbale doubt through
circumstantial evidence.
 PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v. XXX
G.R. No. 240441 December 4, 2019

FACTS

XXX was charged in three separate informations with violation of Section 5(b), Article III of RA 7610, Statutory
Rape and Rape under Article 266-A par 1(d) of the RPC.

AAA and BBB are daughter of CCC who started living with XXX. Sometime in August 1998, XXX ordered AAA to
bring his bolo to the banana plantation. AAA was then 10 years old. When AAA handed over the bolo, XXX
took hold of her, directed her to remove her clothes and ordered her to lie down on the ground. XXX
threatened to kill her should she refuse to obey the command. Out of fear, AAA obliged. Then, XXX removed
his own clothes and positioned himself on top of AAA. He forcibly had carnal knowledge of her. Then XXX told
AAA to get dressed and warned her not to tell the incident to anyone or else he will harm her family.

Sometime in April 2002, AAA was sleeping inside their house when XXX woke her up. He told her to quietly go
outside the house. XXX took AAA to the coconut kiln. There, he ordered AAA to lie down on the floor. He
removed her underwear, then took off his own clothes and laid on top of her. After which, he inserted his
penis inside her vagina and made several push and pull movements.

Sometime in December 2006, while BBB was sleeping in her room, she suddenly felt someone tgging her
blanket. Upon waking, she saw XXX beside her. XXX inserted his hands under her shirt, mashed her breasts
and caressed her legs. She refused XXX’s advances which angered him. He warned her against talking back to
him. BBB reported the matter to their neighbor DDD.

XXX vehemently denied the charges against him. He related that he started living with CCC when AAA was
already 10 years old. As such, AAA’s claim that she was raped when AAA was 8 years old was untrue. Neither
could he have raped her in April 2002, because at that time, CCC was already living in their house and would
have thus immediately found out about the incident.

Likewise, XXX averred that BBB’s claim was untrue, considering that he no longer lived with them at the time
of the alleged incident because he left after Typhoon Reming destroyed their house.

The RTC convicted XXX with the crimes charged. The CA affirmed with modification.

ISSUE

Whether or not the prosecution proved beyond reasonable doubt XXX’s guilt for the crimes charged.

RULING

Affirmed.

In statutory rape, time is not an essential element except to prove that the victim was a minor below twelve
years of age at the time of the commission of the offense. Thus, what matters in the instant case is the fact
that the profession established that AAA was short of 12 years when she was raped.
To sustain conviction under Section 5(b) of RA 7610, the prosecution must establish that: (i) the accused
commits an act of sexual intercourse or lascivious conduct; (ii) the said act is performed with a child exploited
in prostitution or subjected to other sexual abuse; and (iii) the child is below 18 years old.

A child is deemed subjected to other sexual abuse when she or she indulges in lascivious conduct under the
coercion or influence of any adult. XXX’s act of inserting his hands inside BBB’s t-shirt, mashing her breasts and
caressing her legs to gratify his sexual desire, undoubtedly fell under the definition of lascivious conduct.

XXX used his moral ascendancy over BBB in order to perpetrate his lascivious conduct. XXX used his
moral ascendancy over BBB, the daughter of his common-law spouse, in order to perpetrate his lascivious
conduct. BBB lived with XXX during her formative years, and had always regarded him as her father. Added
to this, BBB was afraid of him because he usually beat her and her family whenever he was in a bad
mood. 59
Finally, as established through BBB's testimony and birth certificate, she was only 14 years old
when XXX molested her. 

The RTC convicted XXX of qualified rape, in view of the qualifying circumstances of minority and relationship
— XXX being the common law spouse of AAA's mother. A perusal of the Informations, however, reveal that
what was alleged was that XXX was the "stepfather" of AAA. Because of this, the Court agrees with the CA
that XXX may only be convicted of simple rape, due to the absence of proof that he was in fact AAA's
stepfather. It does not help that the prosecution was able to establish that XXX was the common-law spouse
of AAA's mother, as this circumstance was not alleged in the Information.

Decision of the Court of Appeals, convicting accused-appellant XXX of Rape under Article 266-A, paragraph 1
(d) of the Revised Penal Code, Rape under Article 266-A, paragraph 1 (a) of the Revised Penal Code, and
Lascivious Conduct under Section 5 (b) of Republic Act No. 7610, is AFFIRMED with modification.
 PEOPLE OF THE
PHILIPPINES,  vs. ROMEO DE CASTRO DE GUZMAN
[G.R. No. 224212. November 27, 2019.]

FACTS

In two separate Informations both dated May 11, 2011, De Guzman was charged

with Qualified Rape in relation to Republic Act (RA) No. 7610.
Sometime in 2003, when AAA was only eight (8) years old, appellant who was
then at the small extension of their house asked AAA to join him. At that time[,]
BBB was out of their house doing laundry. AAA's siblings were also asleep. AAA
approached appellant who made her lie down on the floor and removed her
shorts and underwear. Appellant then inserted his penis [into] AAA's vagina. AAA
felt pain but did not shout because prior to this, appellant warned AAA against
reporting the incident to anyone, including her mother.
Another incident of rape occurred when AAA returned to their new house at
around 2:00 p.m., appellant approached AAA while [she was sorting out] her
younger brothers' toys. He immediately removed AAA's shorts and underwear,
and instructed AAA to lie down on the floor. Appellant then inserted his penis into
AAA's vagina. AAA did not shout because she was scared.
During trial, AAA's birth certificate  was presented which revealed that she was
only around seven years old (not yet eight years old as indicated in the
Information) when the first rape was committed, and was 15 years old when she
was raped on May 9, 2011.
The defense presented De Guzman as its lone witness. He denied the
accusations against him. He alleged that AAA was a problematic child and even
joined a gang so much so that her mother shaved her head. He likewise claimed
that AAA was angry at him because he always scolds her, especially since AAA
was seeing her boyfriend.
The RTC ruled that the victim's testimony established the existence of the
elements of rape under Article 266-A, paragraph (1) (a) of the Revised Penal
Code (RPC), as amended. It found that AAA's testimony positively and
categorically demonstrated that De Guzman succeeded in having carnal
knowledge of her. The RTC appreciated the qualifying circumstances of minority
and relationship. The CA likewise held that the twin circumstances of minority of
the victim and her relationship to the offender concurred and raised the offense
to qualified rape.
ISSUE
Whether or not he is guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the felony of Qualified
Rape.

RULING

Negative.
 The elements of qualified rape are: "(1) sexual congress; (2) with a
woman; (3) done by force and without consent; (4) the victim is under
[eighteen] years of age at the time of the rape; and (5) the offender is [either]
a parent (whether legitimate, illegitimate or adopted), [ascendant, stepparent,
guardian, relative by consanguinity or affinity within the third civil degree, or
the common-law spouse of the parent] of the victim." 41 The minority of the
victim and his or her relationship with the offender should both be alleged in
the Information and proven beyond reasonable doubt during trial in order to
qualify the rape charge as these circumstances have the effect of altering the
nature of the rape and its corresponding penalty.
In this case, AAA's minority was properly alleged and indisputably proven
during trial. She was below 18 years old at the time the crimes were committed
against her.
However, during trial, the prosecution failed to establish this stepparent-
stepdaughter relationship between DeGuzman and AAA. No proof of marriage
was presented in order to establish De Guzman's legal relationship with BBB. In
other words, De Guzman cannot be considered as the stepfather of AAA as
alleged in the Informations. On the contrary, records show that De Guzman was
actually the common-law spouse of BBB as he was not legally married to her.
Since De Guzman's relationship with AAA as alleged in the Informations was
not proven beyond reasonable doubt, De Guzmancannot be convicted of
Qualified Rape, only Simple Statutory Rape and Simple Rape.

Decision of the Court of Appeals is AFFIRMED with MODIFICATIONS in

that accused-appellant Romeo De Castro De Guzman is found GUILTY beyond
reasonable doubt of Simple Statutory Rape and Simple Rape.
 PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES vs. XXX
[G.R. No. 229677. October 2, 2019.]

FACTS

AAA ** testified that she first met appellant in a restaurant where she used to
work. On October 2000, they crossed paths again in an appliance store. During
their conversation, he asked if she was looking for an apartment because he had
a spare room for rent. She agreed to transfer to appellant's room.
She went back to appellant's apartment together with her parents. She
introduced them to appellant, who invited them to sleep in his room. The
following morning, her parents left around 7 o'clock in the morning. Appellant
asked her to fix the bedding in his room to which she obliged. While she was
fixing the bedding, however, he suddenly barged, closed the door, and held her
shoulders. She tried to wrestle away but appellant covered her nose with his
hand which emitted an odor that made her weak and dizzy.
Appellant then mounted her, held her body, thrust his penis into her vagina, and
made pumping motions. After satisfying his lust, appellant put on his clothes and
left. She tried to escape but the door was locked from the outside. 7
Around 2 o'clock of the same day, appellant came back and poked a firearm on
her. He forced her to lie down, removed her clothes, and lowered his pants down
to his knees.. Again, he inserted his penis into her vagina and made a push and
pull movement. He held her breast and kissed her neck. He left and locked the
door again. The next day, her mother BBB was able to unlock the door and take
her home.
Appellant testified that, they were a couple when AAA started sleeping in his
rented apartment. They made love twice during her stay there. After their first
sexual intercourse AAA gave him a personal note written on a Jollibee table
napkin where she wrote "Pa, Napakaswerte mong lalake ikaw ang nakauna sa
akin. Love, _____."  He went to AAA's house and proposed marriage to her. He
was informed him that AAA rejected his proposal. He denied having drugged and
raped AAA. It was unlikely that the so-called rape incidents took place inside his
apartment because there were other people in the area.
The trial court ruled in finding herein accused XXX guilty by direct participation of two
(2) counts of Rape punishable under Article 266-A (a) of the Revised Penal Code. The
Court of Appeals affirmed.

ISSUE
Did the Court of Appeals err in affirming appellant's conviction for rape?

RULING
We acquit.
Under Article 266-A (1) (a), rape requires the following elements: (1) the
offender had carnal knowledge of a woman; and (2) the offender accomplished
such act through force, threat, or intimidation.
Appellant does not deny the fact that he had carnal knowledge of AAA twice.
He maintains though that when these happened, AAA was his girlfriend and
they both consented to it. We also find AAA's testimony to be replete with
material inconsistencies and improbabilities. She testified she was locked
inside the room although on cross, she backtracked and said the room was not
locked. In fact, she admitted she could not even remember whether the door
had a lock at all. Granting the room was locked from the outside, she neither
knocked nor shouted for help. More, AAA did not testify that she was denied
the capacity to move or even shout while she was left alone in appellant's
room. For sure, AAA had the opportunity to call for help and a chance to
escape. But she did nothing.
A final word. When a witness is untruthful, any other statement that he or she
utters becomes doubtful. For that matter, where the doubt hinges on the guilt
or innocence of the accused, the Court is compelled to acquit and uphold the
Constitutional presumption of innocence in favor of the accused.
 PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES,  vs. ROLLYBERT OROPESA y DOE
[G.R. No. 229084. October 2, 2019.]

FACTS
Appellant and co-accused Honeyval Latonero y Doe (Latonero) were charged
with two counts of rape.
AAA, then seventeen (17) years old, left her parents' house without their
knowledge, in order to avoid her brother-in-law, the Accused-Appellant, who
already took sexual advantage of her. AAA decided to go to Manila with some
classmates/friends. While AAA and her friends were on their way to the railroad
track, they met the Accused-Appellant and his "compadre," Latonero. AAA's
friends then left her alone.
The Accused-Appellant went to AAA, held her by the arm and, together with
Latonero, brought her inside an empty kubo located near the road. There, the
Accused-Appellant removed AAA's skirt uniform and underwear, laid her on the
grassy ground, and pressed her left thigh. The Accused-Appellant then mounted
AAA and inserted his penis inside AAA's vagina while Latonero held and raised
AAA's hands parallel to her head. The Accused-Appellant then let Latonero take
his turn in having carnal knowledge of AAA, telling him (Latonero), "Sige na padi
gamiton mo na yan to akong bahala sa imo." AAA asked for help from the
Accused-Appellant but the latter merely laughed at her. At the time of the
incident, the Accused-Appellant poked a pair of scissors at AAA's side and
threatened to kill her parents if she said anything to them about what happened.
The Accused-Appellant then brought AAA to his parents' house. AAA left when her
brother came to fetch her there. 
The Accused-Appellant denied the charges against him and stated that AAA was
only used by BBB, his mother-in-law and AAA's mother, in filing the complaint
because he did not like him as a son-in-law and she wanted him to separate from
his wife and AAA's sister, CCC. He testified that on the date and time of the
alleged incident, he did not meet Latonero because he was in his parents' house
at with his wife, parents, siblings, and two (2) children.
Latonero corroborated the Accused-Appellant's testimony and confirmed that his
parents gave money to AAA's family because they wanted to settle the case
amicably though Latonero was innocent of the offense charged.

The trial court rendered a Joint Judgment convicting appellant for one count
of rape. The Court of Appeals affirmed appellant's conviction for rape.

ISSUE
Whether appellant is guilty beyond reasonable doubt of rape.
RULING
Negative. In this case, there is no evidence to prove that appellant used
force, threat or intimidation during his sexual congress with AAA.
The trial court noted that AAA testified that on the date and time of the alleged
rape incident, she was leaving home without asking permission from her
parents, because she wanted to avoid appellant's threats.  Yet, despite these
supposed threats, "AAA went with accused voluntarily in going to the hut
where the incident complained of happened."  
The testimony of AAA is incredible, unconvincing, and inconsistent with human
nature and the normal course of things. If indeed AAA planned to leave home
and run away due to appellant's alleged threats, it is inexplicable why AAA
went voluntarily with appellant. Instead, when AAA and her friends were
allegedly about to go to the railroad track and saw appellant and Latonero, she
and her friends separated ways and AAA went with appellant and Latonero.
Further, during cross-examination, AAA had no answer when asked that despite
the fact that she had previous sexual contact with appellant, she went with him
voluntarily because she trusted him.
AAA still voluntarily went with him because she trusted him. AAA's voluntary acts
of separating from her friends and going with appellant because she trusted him
negate the presence of force, threat, or intimidation in the commission of the
alleged rape.
 Similarly, in this case, where the prosecution gravely failed to establish the
element of force, threat or intimidation in the commission of the crime
charged, the Court acquits appellant of rape.
Appellant Rollybert Oropesa y Doe is ACQUITTED for failure to prove his
guilt beyond reasonable doubt