This case has been cited 1 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. | |||||