top of page
BULGARY - SEN. ROBIN, MAY P150 M AMBAG SA PHIL. FILM HERITAGE, BUILDING ‘DI PA RIN NATAPOS

Paglilinaw sa “sweetheart theory”, kaugnay ng kasong rape

  • Writer: BULGAR
    BULGAR
  • Jun 12, 2021
  • 2 min read

ni Atty. Persida Rueda-Acosta - @Magtanong Kay Attorney | June 12, 2021



Dear Chief Acosta,

Sapat bang depensa na magkasintahan ang dalawang tao upang hindi magkaroon ng kasong rape? Mukhang ito ang pinaniniwalaan ng nobyo ng kapatid ng kaibigan ko kaya malakas ang loob niya. Sa tingin niya ay sapat na ang kanilang relasyon para hindi mapanagot sa ilalim ng batas. Mayroon diumano siyang mga testigo na handang patunayan ang kanilang relasyon. Yoona


Dear Yoona,

Para sa inyong kaalaman, at upang maiparating ninyo rin sa inyong kakilala, hindi sapat ang relasyon o ang tinatawag na “sweetheart theory” bilang depensa sa kasong rape, kung ito lamang ang pinanghahawakan at wala nang iba.


Inihayag ng Korte Suprema sa kasong People of the Philippines vs. Wodie Fruelda y Anulao (G.R. No. 242690, September 03, 2020), na isinulat ni Honorable Associate Justice Alfredo Benjamin S. Caguioa, ang mga sumusunod:


“The Court is not convinced. Absent independent proof of his alleged relationship with AAA, Fruelda’s self-serving testimony and the speculative testimonies of his witnesses, Elida and Pandi, fall short of substantiating his sweetheart defense.


The “sweetheart theory” is an affirmative defense often raised to prove the non-attendance of force or intimidation. When an accused in a rape case claims xxx that he is in a relationship with the complainant, the burden of proof shifts to him xxx. In People v. Bautista, the Court held:


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.


xxx it must be proven by compelling evidence. 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.”


Sa madaling salita, hindi ibig sabihin na kapag magkarelasyon ang dalawang tao ay wala nang puwersa o pilitang naganap at kusang pumayag na makipagtalik ang biktima. Malinaw rin na maliban sa pahayag ng akusado at mga testigo, kinakailangan din ng iba pang patunay ng relasyon, tulad ng mga larawan.


Sana ay nabigyan namin ng linaw ang inyong katanungan. Ang payong aming ibinigay ay base lamang sa impormasyon na inyong inilahad at maaaring magbago kung mababawasan o madaragdagan ang mga detalye ng inyong salaysay.


Maraming salamat sa inyong patuloy na pagtitiwala.

Comments


Disclaimer : The views and opinions expressed on this website or any comments found on any articles herein, are those of the authors or columnists alike, and do not necessarily reflect nor represent the views and opinions of the owner, the company, the management and the website.

RECOMMENDED
bottom of page