This case has been cited 3 times or more.
|
2014-08-20 |
PEREZ, J. |
||||
| The "sweetheart theory" is an admission of carnal knowledge of the victim and consequently places on the accused the burden of proving the supposed relationship by substantial evidence.[19] Otherwise called as the "sweetheart defense," it is an oft-abused justification that rashly derides the intelligence of this Court and sorely tests our patience.[20] The defense cannot just present testimonial evidence in support of the theory, as in the instant case. Independent proof is required such as tokens, mementos, and photographs.[21] Appellant presented no such evidence to substantiate his claim. | |||||
|
2010-01-26 |
CORONA, J. |
||||
| The "sweetheart theory" is an admission of carnal knowledge of the victim and consequently places on the accused the burden of proving the supposed relationship by substantial evidence.[14] Appellant presented no evidence to substantiate his claim. | |||||
|
2010-01-26 |
CORONA, J. |
||||
| Nonetheless, the victims are entitled to exemplary damages since appellant used a deadly weapon to perpetrate the offense.[19] While the use of a deadly weapon is not one of the generic aggravating circumstances in Article 14 of the RPC, under Article 266-B thereof, the presence of such circumstance in the commission of rape increases the penalty, provided that it has been alleged in the Information and proved during trial.[20] This manifests the legislative intent to treat the accused who resorts to this particular circumstance as one with greater perversity and, concomitantly, to address it by imposing a greater degree of liability. Thus, even if the use of a deadly weapon is not alleged in the Information but is proven during the trial, it may be appreciated to justify the award of civil liability, particularly exemplary damages.[21] | |||||