An insult confronted the Romero family when on the evening of November 30, 1970, their daughter Rita,

under fifteen left alone by her mother in a house at Aliw Beach, Zamboanga City. The complaint of rape
was compelled to submit forcibly twice because of the sexual advances of the accused Hector Galos, also
a boarder in the same house. The accused did not deny the sexual intercourse but he insisted that
complainant did so willingly as they are sweethearts. He also stressed his presence in the room until the
dawn of the next day and the absence of any outcry from her which could have been heard by those
staying in another room. His testimony was corroborated by another boarder and the owner of the
house itself. The lower court sided on the victims statement and sentenced him to reclusion perpetua.
The severity of the penalty is based on circumstances and careful scrutiny of the proceedings records
where unusual in rape cases and a conflict of testimony as to what actually happened. x x x As will be
more fully explained, a careful scrutiny of accused and complainants testimony fails to satisfy that a
finding of guilt is warranted. We reverse.

The disparity in the versions by contending parties cannot obscure indubitable facts. The accused did not
use force or deceit to enter the room where the filthy incident took place. He did not deny and even his
two witnesses that earlier in the evening the complainant was with them engaging in drinking and light
banter. It could very well be that the euphoric feeling induced by the complainant drinking the tuba wine
led to the relaxation of what could be inhibiting factors. When they were inside the room, with the
accused being a suitor to put at its mildest, unexpectedly sexual intimacies took place. It could very well
be that the victim did not initially agree to indulge in an act of intercourse. Under the circumstances with
flattery and gentleness of the accused, there is no impossibility to reach sexual intimacies. Much more, it
happened twice. There could have been a third time if it were not of the foiled chair that gave way due
to their weight. The man did not use any weapon to intimidate the complainant. There were no
intimations that were no oppositions on her part. She did not yell to scream. The boarders in the next
room which is separated by only a thin partition could have heard any breathing. That certainly was not
rape. As it emphasized, the accused stayed until dawn. Early next morning, they were seen together.
Hence, the accused must be acquitted.

1. The accused is presumed innocent. The law says so. Jurisprudence dictates in US vs Asiao, the court
said, must be presumed to be innocent until guilt is proven by satisfactory testimonyThe burden of
proof rests upon the prosecution. Any doubt having a rational basis must be removed. The crime of rape
is charged through force and intimidation, there must be compulsion being resorted to and coercion
being employed. The element of voluntariness must be lacking.

2. The courts opinion is not to be misinterpreted. Furthermore, it should be acknowledged that the
evidences submitted of the complainant do no satisfy the elements of rape.

In the light of the applicable constitutional provision and with respect to the rights of the accused, the
court declares reversal of the decision.

WHEREFORE, the decision of the lower court is set aside and the accused is acquitted of rape.