. . . No young Filipina of decent repute would publicly admit she had been raped unless that was the truth. Even in these modern times, this principle still holds true.

Besides, even if indeed accused-appellant and complainant are sweethearts, this fact does not necessarily negate rape. "A sweetheart cannot be forced to have sex against her will. Definitely, a man cannot demand sexual gratification from a fiancee and, worse, employ violence upon her on the pretext of love. Love is not a license for lust."

Nor can we sustain accused-appellant’s claim that there was no force or intimidation employed by him in this case. In People v. Fraga,22 [G.R. Nos. 134130-33, April 12, 2000.] we held:

The test is whether the threat or intimidation produces a reasonable fear in the mind of the victim that if she resists or does not yield to the desires of the accused, the threat would be carried out. Where resistance would be futile, offering none at all does not amount to consent to the sexual assault. It is not necessary that the victim should have resisted unto death or sustained physical injuries in the hands of the rapist. It is enough if the intercourse takes place against her will or if she yields because of genuine apprehension of harm to her if she did not do so. Indeed, the law does not impose upon a rape victim the burden of proving resistance.

Justice Mendoza, Second Division, People v. Wilson Dreu, [G.R. No. 126282. June 20, 2000]

A "sweetheart defense" should be substantiated by some documentary and/or other evidence of the relationship.

Appellant next insists that the intercourse between him and Judeliza was consensual, since they were sweethearts. A "sweetheart defense" should be substantiated by some documentary and/or other evidence of the relationship.5 [People v. Garces, Jr., G.R. No. 132368, January 20, 2000, p. 1.] In this case, there is no showing of mementos, love letters, notes, pictures, or any concrete proof of a romantic nature. Besides, as observed by the trial judge, it is contrary to human experience that a naive rural lass like Judeliza, barely nineteen years old, would willingly consent to be her uncle's paramour. Nor, would he if he were indeed her sweetheart maltreat her repeatedly for no justifiable cause, without over-straining our credulity.

Justice Quisumbing, En Banc, People v. Jimmy Garbo, [G.R. No. 126114. May 11, 2000]  

The "sweetheart defense" has often been raised in rape cases but has rarely been upheld as the defense failed to come up with convincing proof. Indeed, accused-appellant bears the burden of proving that he and complainant had an affair which naturally led to a sexual relationship.20 [People v. Barcelona, G.R. No. 125341, February 9, 2000, citing People v. Manahan, G.R. No. 128157, Sept. 29, 1999.] As we held in People v. Barcelona:21 [Supra.]

. . . No young Filipina of decent repute would publicly admit she had been raped unless that was the truth. Even in these modern times, this principle still holds true.

Justice Mendoza, Second Division, People v. Dreu [G.R. No. 126282. June 20, 2000]

The trial court considered as proof that there was no planned elopement the circumstance that accused-appellant had allowed Rowena to go home by herself and just waited for her to return and that after hearing Rowena’s mother scolding her he left instead of waiting around for a chance to at least talk with Rowena. We do not share the view of the trial court. We believe instead that his departure meant that he accepted the fact that their plan to elope had been thwarted. And while he might have failed to introduce proofs of his "sweetheart theory" such as love letters, gifts and the like,19 [People v. Venerable, G. R. No. 110110, 13 May 1998, 290 SCRA 15.] other than the testimony of his sister which we find to be biased per se, we find these no longer pertinent. The unwitting disclosure of Rowena herself that she was ordered by accused-appellant to return with her jewelry and clothes was already an adequate indication that the two (2) intended to run away. Calrspä ped

The present case brings to mind People v. Godoy20 [See Note 16.] where accused-appellant, a physics teacher of the rape victim, likewise proferred the main defense that he and the complainant were sweethearts. In acquitting him we ratiocinated -

x x x x While the "sweetheart theory" does not often gain favor with this Court, such is not always the case if the hard fact is that the accused and the supposed victim are, in truth, intimately related except that, as is usual in most cases, either the relationship is illicit or the victims’ parents are against it. It is not improbable that in some instances, when the relationship is uncovered, the alleged victim or her parents for that matter would rather take the risk of instituting a criminal action in the hope that the court would take the cudgels for them than for the woman to admit to her own acts of indiscretion. And this, as the records reveal, is precisely what happened to appellant x x x x

The Court takes judicial cognizance of the fact that in rural areas in the Philippines, young ladies are strictly required to act with circumspection and prudence. Great caution is observed so that their reputation shall remain untainted. Any breath of scandal which brings dishonor to their character humiliates their entire families. It could precisely be that complainant’s mother wanted to save face in the community where everybody knows everybody else, and in an effort to conceal her daughter’s indiscretion and escape the wagging tongues of their small rural community, she had to weave the scenario of this rape drama x x x x

Justice Bellosillo. Second Division, PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. ROBERTO SAN JUAN, accused-appellant. [G.R. No. 130969. February 29, 2000]

Accused Jerry’s defense that he and Ervie were lovers deserves scant consideration. Other than his self-serving statement, "no documentary evidence of any sort, like a letter or a photograph or any piece of memento, was presented to confirm a romantic lia[i]son between accused-appellant and the complainant."44 [People vs. Alfanta, G. R. No. 125633, December 9, 1999.] Ervie categorically denied having any relationship with the accused, whom she respected and called uncle.

Justice Pardo, First Division, People v. Abalde [G.R. No. 123113. March 31, 2000]

While the Court has upheld the defense of consensual sex in some cases, this was on the basis of strong evidence, consisting of letters and the testimonies of witnesses, showing that the alleged rape was actually sex by mutual consent.31 [See People v. Bayron, G.R. No. 122732, Sept. 7, 1999.] Having been raised as an affirmative defense, the "sweetheart theory" must be established by convincing proof.32 [People v. Monfero, G.R. No. 126367, June 17, 1999.] Accused-appellant bears the burden of proving that he and complainant had an affair which naturally led to a sexual relationship. This accused-appellant failed to do.

The letter presented by accused-appellant is not, in fact, a love letter. It contains no passage in which complainant professes her love to accused-appellant. On the contrary, complainant wrote "Happy Birthday, my friend," leaving no room for interpretation as to what she felt toward accused-appellant. At best, this letter can be taken as a friendly greeting on accused-appellant’s birthday. Surely, the letter was not intended to be a carte blanche or an open invitation for sexual indulgence.33 [People v. Cervantes, 333 Phil. 704 (1996).]

Justice Mendoza, Second Division, THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. JOEY BARCELONA y SADILLE, accused-appellant [G.R. No. 125341. February 9, 2000]

Justice Quisumbing, Second Division, PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. JOAQUIN CARATAY alias "JACK", accused-appellant [G.R. Nos. 119418, 119436-37. October 5, 1999]

The medical examination of a victim is not a requisite for the successful prosecution of rape. Even without a medical report, a court may convict an accused based on the offended party's credible testimony. The "sweetheart" defense cannot be given credence in the absence of corroborative proof like love notes, mementos, pictures or tokens. Love is not a license to rape.

xxx

Appellant admits that he had sexual intercourse with the complainant that fateful day, but argues that they were lovers and the act was consensual.30 [Appellant’s Brief, pp. 11-12; rollo, pp. 57-58.] He adds that their respective marriages to different persons had not prevented them from engaging in sexual dalliances with each other.

We are not persuaded. Other than his bare assertions, appellant adduced no independent proof that he was the sweetheart of the victim. His defense was neither corroborated by any other witness nor substantiated by any memento, love note, picture or token.31 [See People v. Acabo, 259 SCRA 75, July 17, 1996.] Furthermore, even assuming that the two were lovers, their relationship did not give him a license to sexually assault her.32 [People v. Buendia, GR Nos. 133949-51, September 16, 1999; People v. Travero, 276 SCRA 301, July 28, 1997; People v. Laray, 253 SCRA 654, 662-663, February 20, 1996; People v. Gecomo, 254 SCRA 82, 110, February 23, 1996.]

Appellant’s defense is further negated by the behavior of the victim who, according to Rogelio Sumbilon, was running out of the crime scene "sobbing and very pale"33 [TSN, September 27, 1989, p. 5.] immediately after the commission of the crime. Elaborating during cross-examination, he said that the victim "was in a hurry, as if she was afraid of something and as if somebody was running after her."34 [Ibid., p. 10.] When they reached her house, she told him that she was afraid and that they should hurry to her mother’s house about three or four kilometers away. Her conduct clearly belied appellant’s claim that the sexual act was consensual.

Justice Panganiban, Third Division, PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. EGMEDIO LAMPAZA, accused-appellant. [G.R. No. 138876. November 24, 1999]

Moreover, ROLANDO’s defense that he and JIHAN were lovers deserves scant consideration. Other than his self-serving averment, he presented no evidence to prove their special relationship, such as details regarding the personal circumstances of JIHAN or even love letters and gifts. If she were indeed the object of his affection, it was critical for ROLANDO to prove some ill-motive on her part for making such a serious accusation.26 [People v. Bantisil, 249 SCRA 378 [1995]; People v. Tismo, 204 SCRA 535 [1991].] Absent such consideration, as in this case, the victim’s testimony should be upheld. Verily, a rape victim would not publicly disclose that she had been raped and undergo the humiliation of trial if her motive was other than justice and retribution. More specifically, it would be unbecoming a young Filipina to publicly admit that she had been criminally abused and ravished unless such is the truth, for it is her natural instinct to protect her honor.27 [People v. Cabilao, 210 SCRA 327 [1992].]

CJ Davide Jr., First Division, PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. ROLANDO PATRIARCA, accused-appellant [G.R. No. 132748. November 24, 1999]