Sweetheart theory– For the sweetheart theory to prosper, the existence of the supposed relationship must be proven by convincing substantial evidence. Failure to adduce such evidence renders his claim to be self-serving and of not probative value. For the satisfaction of the Court, there should be a corroboration by their common friends or, if none, a substantiation of tokens of such a relationship such as love letters, gifts, pictures and the like.[1] Indeed, a testimony as to an apparent sweetness between two people does not instantly prove consent to a sexual encounter.[2]
“Time and again, we have ruled that the existence of a romantic relationship between two (2) persons does not discount the commission of rape for it can be committed by one spouse against the other. But here, AAA’s credibility is seriously being put in question vis-à-vis the testimony of her mother, BBB, her sister CCC, and DDD, an impartial witness together with her two (2) handwritten messages to appellant, plainly indicating she was not honest after all about the rape charges she initiated against appellant.”[3]
“XX. As an affirmative defense, the “sweetheart” theory must be supported by convincing evidence, such as mementos, love, love letters, notes, and photographs. However, XXX’s theory of consensual sex is barren of probative weight. He failed to substantiate his claim and offered only self-serving assertions. Further, the testimony of the accused’s close relative is necessarily suspect and cannot prevail over AAA’s unequivocal declaration that XXX “did not court her” and “was not even [her] boyfriend. Even assuming that they have a relationship., XXX cannot force AAA to have sex against her will. A “love affair” neither justifies Rape nor serves as a license for lust. In addition, the filing of criminal charges are not acts of a woman savoring a consensual coitus but that of a maiden seeking retribution for the outrage committed against her.”[4] (Citations omitted)
“In any case, even if accused-appellant and the victim were lovers, the law does not excuse the use of force and intimidation to satisfy carnal urges and desires. Being sweethearts does not determine consent, since “a love affair does not justify rape, for the beloved cannot be sexually violated against her will. Even married couples, upon whom the law imposes the duty to cohabitate, are protected from forced sexual congress.”[5] (Citations omitted)
“We emphasize that rape under Article 266-A merely entails that sexual intercourse be enforced by a man on another individual, regardless of their relationship. Like so, Republic Act No. 9262 considers rape as violence against women which may be committed by a person against his wife, former wife, or whom one has or had an intimate relationship:
SECTION 3. Definition of Terms — As used in this Act, (a) “Violence against women and their children” refers to any act or a series of acts committed by any person against a woman who is his wife, former wife, or against a woman with whom the person has or had a sexual or dating relationship, or with whom he has a common child, or against her child whether legitimate or illegitimate, within or without the family abode, which result in or is likely to result in physical, sexual, psychological harm or suffering, or economic abuse including threats of such acts, battery, assault, coercion, harassment or arbitrary deprivation of liberty. It includes, but is not limited to, the following acts:
- “Physical violence” refers to acts that include bodily or physical harm;
- “Sexual violence” refers to an act which is sexual in nature, committed against a woman or her child.It incudes, but is not limited to:
- Rape, sexual harassment, acts of lasciviousness[.](Emphasis supplied)
In light of advanced views on patriarchy, the exculpatory value of the sweetheart defense, except in proving motive, has already been diminished in our jurisprudence to the point of being negligible.”[6]
“At any rate, even lacking the same propositions and assuming further as the accused-appellant’s submission that he and AAA are sweethearts, the existence of such relationship is not tantamount to consent. Proof of romantic relationship does not necessarily indicate consent nor negate the absence of consent to the sexual encounter. As the Court previously ruled, “a love affair does not justify rape, for the beloved cannot be sexually violated against her will. Love is a license for lust.”[7]
[1]People v. Bayrante, G.R. no. G.R. No 188798, June 13, 2012; People v. Quinto, G.R. No. 246460, June 8, 2020
[2] People v. Gecomo, 324 Phil. 297 (1996), cited in People v. Briones, G.R. No. 240217, June 23, 2020
[3] People v. XXX, G.R. No. 229677, October 2, 2019
[4] People v. XXX, G.R. No. 243988, August 27, 2020
[5] People v. Pingol, G.R. No. 219243, November 4, 2020
[6] People v. Pingol, G.R. No. 219243, November 4, 2020
[7] People v. Sernadilla, G.R. No. 201147, September 21, 2022