2. Pedro was the accused in a rape case. During the trial, the private complainant testified that on the night of the incident, she was walking home when Predro, who was her neigbhor, suddenly grabbed her and brought her to his house. There, Pedro forcibly had carnal knowledge of her. After the prosecution rested its case, Pedro testified that the sexual intercourse between him and the private complainant was consensual. Eventually, the trial court acquitted Pedro on reasonable doubt and found that the element of force was not established. The People filed a Rule 65 petition for certiorari with the Court of Appeals (CA), alleging that the trial court’s decision was rendered with grave abuse of discretion because the private complainant’s testimony clearly established that Pedro had carnal knowledge of her through force and without her consent. In his comment, Pedro sought to dismiss the petition on the ground of violation of his right against double jeopardy. As the CA, how would you rule on the petition? Explain briefly. (5 points)