This case has been cited 4 times or more.
|
2014-02-12 |
PEREZ, J. |
||||
| It goes against the grain of human experience for a woman who has been robbed of her honor and chastity not to seize an opportunity to escape from the clutches of her malefactor.[27] Instead of escaping from her abuser, AAA visited appellant's neighbor.[28] Even if AAA had several opportunities to share her ordeal to be rescued by her friend, Wilma, AAA inexplicably failed and instead described the details of her marital plans. What is truly exceptional, however, is the testimony of AAA that she visited her grandmother during the period of her alleged abduction. Despite inconsistencies in her testimony as shown in the TSN, AAA admitted the visit to her grandmother:[29] Q: So you did not proceed to your grandmother's house, where is the house of your grandmother? A: Km. 81. Q: Near the Dulo? A: A bit farther of Dulo. Q: You rode in a jeep and the driver is your cousin? A: No sir we rode (sic) pedicab going to my grandmother's place. Q: There were no people? A: We are used to ride (sic) pedicab. Q: So you rode a pedicab at that time? A: No, Sir. [Emphasis supplied] We are mindful that appellant's bare invocation of the sweetheart theory cannot alone stand. It 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.[30] There is such corroboration in this case. To support its sweetheart theory, the defense presented appellant and AAA's common friend, Enriquez, who attested to the veracity of appellant's claim:[31] | |||||
|
2011-07-27 |
PEREZ, J. |
||||
| Accused's bare invocation of sweetheart theory cannot alone, stand. To be credible, it must be corroborated by documentary, testimonial, or other evidence. [42] Usually, these are letters, notes, photos, mementos, or credible testimonies of those who know the lovers. [43] | |||||
|
2010-11-17 |
MENDOZA, J. |
||||
| Seventh, granting that they were lovers, this fact alone could not have ruled out rape as it did not necessarily mean there was consent. A love affair does not justify rape[37] for a man does not have an unbridled license to subject his beloved to his carnal desires against her will.[38] | |||||
|
2007-10-02 |
CHICO-NAZARIO, J. |
||||
| And even if it were true that they were sweethearts, a love affair does not justify rape, for the beloved cannot be sexually violated against her will.[31] A man does not have an unbridled license to subject his beloved to his carnal desires.[32] | |||||