E-Library - Information At Your Fingertips: Printer Friendly 4 of 14 http://elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/thebookshelf/showdocsfriendly/1/62543 CA. Upholding the conviction, the appellate court held that petitioner's denial cannot prevail over the positive and categorical testimony of the private complainant. The dispositive portion of the decision reads: "WHEREFORE, premises considered, the instant Petition for Review is DISMISSED. The assailed order dated July 24, 2012 of the Regional Trial Court of Naic, Cavite, Branch 15 is AFFIRMED. SO ORDERED."[26] Our Ruling In a Petition for Review on Certiorari[27] under Rule 45, petitioner now comes before this Court seeking a reversal of the CA decision affirming the conviction. After a thorough review of the facts and evidence on record, We rule for accused-appellant's acquittal as the degree of proof required in criminal cases has not been met. Acts of Lasciviousness The crime Acts of Lasciviousness is punished under Article 336 of the Revised Penal Code, viz: Art. 336. Acts of lasciviousness. Any person who shall commit any act of lasciviousness upon other persons of either sex, under any of the circumstances mentioned in the preceding article, shall be punished by prision correccional. To secure a conviction, the confluence of the following elements must be established by the prosecution beyond reasonable doubt: (1) that the offender commits any act of lasciviousness or lewdness; and (2) that it is done under any of the following circumstances: (a) by using force or intimidation; (b) when the offended woman is deprived of reason or otherwise unconscious; or (c) when the offended party is under twelve (12) years of age.[28] The first element-that accused-appellant committed an act characterized by lewdness-was not proven beyond reasonable doubt. Accused-appellant conceded that he entered the purported victim's room and down beside her, but he vehemently denies mounting her and sucking her breasts. On the other hand, Jacqueline alleged that accused-appellant mounted her and sucked her breasts while she was asleep. In essence, the testimony of the purported victim is pitted against the the testimony of the accused-appellant. The Court is faced with the challenge of deciding which of the two opposing testimonies should hold more weight. The Equipoise Rule thus comes into play. Under the said rule, "where the evidence on an issue of fact is in equipoise, or there is doubt on which side the evidence preponderates, the party having the burden of proof loses."[29] Considering that nothing is more settled in criminal law than the rule that the prosecution has the burden of proof to establish the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt.[30] We hold that in the case at bar, the scales of justice should tip in favor of accused- 4/21/2020, 9:21 AM