Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

PEOPLE v. SONNY BAUTISTA Y LACANILAO

This case has been cited 7 times or more.

	GR No. 201110 2015-07-06	PEOPLE v. JEFFREY VICTORIA Y CRISTOBAL VILLARAMA, JR., J.
In People v. Bautista[8] we laid down the requirements before the accused can seek refuge behind the "sweetheart defense" to wit:In rape, the "sweetheart" defense must be proven by compelling evidence: first, that the accused and the victim were lovers; and, second, that she consented to the alleged sexual relations. The second is as important as the first, because this Court has held often enough that love is not a license for lust. Accused-appellant failed in both aspects.
	GR No. 192941 2013-11-13	PEOPLE v. DANIEL ALCOBER LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, J.
We must emphasize that when the accused in a rape case claims, as in the case at bar, that the sexual intercourse between him and the complainant was consensual, the burden of evidence shifts to him, such that he is now enjoined to adduce sufficient evidence to prove the relationship. Being an affirmative defense, it must be established with convincing evidence, such as by some documentary and/or other evidence like mementos, love letters, notes, pictures and the like.[25] Thus, in People v. Mirandilla, Jr.,[26] we held: The sweetheart theory as a defense, however, necessarily admits carnal knowledge, the first element of rape. Effectively, it leaves the prosecution the burden to prove only force or intimidation, the coupling element of rape. x x x.
	GR No. 164733 2007-09-21	MICHAEL JOHN Z. MALTO v. PEOPLE CORONA, J.
The sweetheart theory applies in acts of lasciviousness and rape, felonies committed against or without the consent of the victim. It operates on the theory that the sexual act was consensual. It requires proof that the accused and the victim were lovers and that she consented to the sexual relations.[30]
	GR No. 176633 2007-09-05	PEOPLE v. ARMANDO SAN ANTONIO CHICO-NAZARIO, J.
The "sweetheart defense" is a much-abused defense that rashly derides the intelligence of the Court and sorely tests its patience.[27] Being an affirmative defense, it must be established with convincing evidence - by some documentary and/or other evidence like mementos, love letters, notes, pictures and the like.[28] Likewise, the "sweetheart theory" appellant proffers is effectively an admission of carnal knowledge of the victim and consequently places on him the burden of proving the supposed relationship by substantial evidence. To be worthy of judicial acceptance, such a defense should be supported by documentary, testimonial or other evidence.[29] In this case, however, the appellant failed to discharge this burden. Other than his self-serving assertions, there was no support to his claim that he and AAA were lovers. His "sweetheart defense" cannot be given credence in the absence of corroborative proof like love notes, mementos, pictures or tokens, that such romantic relationship really existed. Moreover, even the testimonies of the witnesses for the defense, i.e., Francisco and Wendy, proved that, indeed, the appellant and AAA were not lovers. Although the other defense witness, Jacqueline, claimed that the relationship of the appellant and AAA was of general knowledge to the community, she cannot name even a single person who knew of such relationship. We quote the testimonies of Francisco, Wendy and Jacqueline: Witness: FRANCISCO PORTUGAL, 30 years old, married, jobless, x x x.
	GR NO. 174060 2007-06-25	PEOPLE v. LITO BEJIC Y ANTONI CHICO-NAZARIO, J.
The gravamen of rape is carnal knowledge or sexual intercourse with a woman against her will or without her consent.[23]
	GR NO. 170566 2006-03-03	PEOPLE v. ALEJANDRO CALONGUI Y LOPEZ YNARES-SANTIAGO, J.
As regards the September 26, 1998 rape incident, we are not persuaded that what transpired between appellant and Marinel was consensual sexual intercourse. Well-settled is the rule that the sweethearts defense must be proven by compelling evidence, specifically, that the accused and the victim were lovers and that the victim consented to the alleged sexual relations.[13] Appellant's claim that he and Marinel were lovers remained uncorroborated and unsubstantiated. No documentary evidence like mementos, love letters, notes, pictures and the like were presented.[14] Marinel denied the alleged love relationship on direct[15] and cross-examination.[16] Besides, the sweethearts defense does not rule out rape. Even if it were true, the relationship does not, by itself, establish consent for love is not a license for lust.[17]