GR L 63452; (June, 1984) (Digest)
G.R. No. L-63452 June 25, 1984
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. GIL BIHASA, defendant-appellant.
FACTS
The accused-appellant, Gil Bihasa, was convicted of rape by the Court of First Instance of Aurora and sentenced to reclusion perpetua. The prosecution alleged that in the early morning of June 11, 1981, Bihasa entered the house of Marilyn Maliwanag, threatened her with a knife, and had sexual intercourse with her against her will. The victim’s cousin, Teresita España, testified that she saw Bihasa leaving Marilyn’s room holding a knife. The defense presented an alibi, claiming Bihasa was at a drinking session and then at home during the incident.
The Supreme Court, however, noted several inconsistencies and unusual behaviors casting doubt on the prosecution’s narrative. The victim left for Cabanatuan City days later to allegedly persuade her rapist to marry her. Her father, instead of immediately seeking justice, pursued an amicable settlement by asking Bihasa to marry his daughter. These actions were deemed incongruent with the typical reaction of a rape victim and her family.
ISSUE
Whether the guilt of the accused for the crime of rape was proven beyond reasonable doubt.
RULING
The Supreme Court reversed the conviction and acquitted Gil Bihasa. The legal logic centered on the requirement of moral certainty for a criminal conviction, which was absent due to the evidence suggesting consent rather than force. The Court found the complainant’s and her family’s subsequent conduct—specifically, seeking marriage with the accused—inconsistent with the trauma of a violent rape. This behavior pointed toward a prior amorous relationship.
Crucially, the medical expert’s testimony indicated two separate instances of intercourse on June 10 and June 11, 1981, contradicting the prosecution’s theory of a single, forced act. The Court held that rape is not presumed; the prosecution must prove the essential element of carnal knowledge through force or intimidation. The evidence failed to establish this beyond reasonable doubt. The logical and inevitable conclusion from the record was the possibility of a voluntary sexual encounter, thereby creating reasonable doubt that mandated acquittal. The constitutional duty to acquit when guilt is not proven with moral certainty prevailed.