Laws & Jurisprudence
Requisites For Sweetheart Theory As A Defense In Rape
12:50 AM
Appellant
Jose Dioquino was charged with eight counts of rape allegedly
committed against ABC, a minor. Upon arraignment, appellant entered a
plea of not guilty to all the charges as stated in the informations.
Trial ensued.
ABC,
the victim, testified that she was raped on several occasions by the
accused. According to her, the appellant hit her in the abdomen
before the appellant raped her. This testimony of the victim was
corroborated by the medical findings conducted by the Municipal
Health Officer of Matnog, Sorsogon.
On
the other hand, appellant presented the sweetheart defense. Claiming
to be ABC’s boyfriend, appellant took the witness stand and
asserted that the alleged rapes complained against him were, in
reality, the mutual acts of young lovers. Having made love to said
minor two months after she became his girlfriend, appellant claimed
that he engaged in a string of consensual sexual encounters with ABC,
with whom he eloped at her suggestion. Also, presented a handwritten
document whereby ABC acknowledged the voluntariness of her elopement
with appellant.
The
RTC found appellant guilty of seven counts of rape and sentenced him
to reclusion perpetua for each count. The RTC further ordered
appellant to indemnify ABC in the amount of P50,000 as civil
indemnity and P50,000 as moral damages and to pay the costs. The RTC
did not give any credence to appellant’s sweetheart defense for it
was admittedly not supported by any evidence of their relationship.
Moreover, the existence of force and intimidation was proven by the
prosecution for each of the times appellant had carnal knowledge of
ABC.
On
appeal, the CA affirmed appellant’s conviction for seven counts of
rape but modified the monetary damages awarded. The CA agreed with
the RTC that ABC’s testimony was candid, straightforward, and
credible. In trying to impute ill motive on ABC’s testimony,
appellant claimed that ABC’s mother concocted the rape charges
because she disapproved of their relationship. However, this
self-serving assertion was easily debunked by his own witness who
testified that he helped pacify appellant who threw an uncontrollable
fit because ABC’s parents were forcing him to marry their daughter.
The CA added that appellant failed to prove that they were really
lovers. ABC’s supposed acknowledgment of elopement contained in a
handwritten document made by appellant’s own uncle and her
affirmative answer to the police investigator’s question whether
she went with appellant voluntarily cannot be taken as evidence of
existing relationship between ABC and appellant. The CA held that the
extra-judicial admissions, made in the absence of ABC’s parents and
in the presence of appellant’s relatives and police, if given any
evidentiary value at all, merely prove that she went with appellant
voluntarily but does not disprove the rape.
ISSUE:
Is
the appellant's invocation of the “sweetheart theory” persuasive?
RULING:
Appellant's
invocation of the “sweetheart theory” is NOT persuasive.
Appellant’s bare invocation of the sweetheart theory cannot stand.
To be credible, the sweetheart theory must be corroborated by
documentary, testimonial, or other evidence. Usually, these are
letters, notes, photos, mementos, or credible testimonies of those
who know the lovers. Appellant’s defense admittedly lacks these
pieces of evidence. In adopting the sweetheart theory as a defense,
however, he necessarily admitted carnal knowledge of ABC, the first
element of rape. This admission makes the sweetheart theory more
difficult to defend, for it is not only an affirmative defense that
needs convincing proof, but also after the prosecution has
successfully established a prima facie case, the burden of evidence
is shifted to the accused, who has to adduce evidence that the
intercourse was consensual. No such evidence was presented to show
that the several episodes of sexual intercourse were consensual. The
medical examination done on ABC debunks any claim of appellant that
he did not force himself upon ABC.
Appellant
also cannot benefit from the so-called acknowledgment executed by ABC
that she voluntarily went with him considering the circumstances
surrounding its execution. The RTC and CA correctly considered that
the acknowledgment was written by the Barangay Captain who happened
to be appellant's uncle and the acknowledgment was made without the
participation of ABC and her parents. In any event, as observed by
the CA, even if the Court gives evidentiary weight to the document,
such does not disprove rape.
THE
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee, vs. JOEL
DIOQUINO Y GARBIN, Accused-Appellant.
VILLARAMA,
JR.,J.:
The author takes no responsibility for the validity, correctness and result of this work. The information provided is not a legal advice and it should not be used as a substitute for a competent legal advice from a licensed lawyer. See the disclaimer
0 comments