In addition, the CA noted that the fact that KKK and the accused-appellant are spouses only reinforces the truthfulness of KKK's accusations because no wife in her right mind would accuse her husband of having raped her if it were not true. The delay in the filing of the rape complaint was sufficiently explained by KKK when she stated that she only found out that a wife may charge his husband with rape when the fiscal investigating her separate complaint for grave threats and physical injuries told her about it. Finally, the CA dismissed the accused-appellant's alibi for lack of convincing evidence that it was physically impossible for him to be at his residence in Cagayan de Oro City at the time of the commission of the crimes, considering that Dangcagan, Bukidnon, the place where he allegedly was, is only about four or five hours away. Accordingly, the decretal portion of the decision read: WHEREFORE, in the light of the foregoing, the appealed Judgment is hereby AFFIRMED. SO ORDERED.79 Hence, the present review. In the Court Resolution80 dated July 6, 2009, the Court notified the parties that, if they so desire, they may file their respective supplemental briefs. In a Manifestation and Motion81 dated September 4, 2009, the appellee, through the Office of the Solicitor General, expressed that it intends to adopt its Brief before the CA. On April 16, 2012, the accused-appellant, through counsel, filed his Supplemental Brief, arguing that he was not in Cagayan de Oro City when the alleged rape incidents took place, and the presence of force, threat or intimidation is negated by: (a) KKK's voluntary act of going with him to the conjugal bedroom on October 16, 1998; (b) KKK's failure to put up resistance or seek help from police authorities; and ( c) the absence of a medical certificate and of blood traces in KKK's panties.82 Our Ruling I. Rape and marriage: the historical connection The evolution of rape laws is actually traced to two ancient English practices of 'bride capture' whereby a man conquered a woman through rape and 'stealing an heiress' whereby a man abducted a woman and married her.83 The rape laws then were intended not to redress the violation of the woman's chastity but rather to punish the act of obtaining the heiress' property by forcible marriage84 or to protect a man's valuable interest in his wife's chastity or her daughter's virginity.85 If a man raped an unmarried virgin, he was guilty of stealing her father's property and if a man raped his wife, he was merely using his property.86 Women were subjugated in laws and society as objects or goods and such treatment was justified under three ideologies. Under the chattel theory prevalent during the 6th century, a woman was the property of her father until she marries to become the property of her husband.87 If a man abducted an unmarried woman, he had to pay the owner, and later buy her from the owner; buying and marrying a wife were synonymous.88