One of the defenses often used by persons accused of rape is the “sweetheart theory”. To be worthy of judicial acceptance, what must the accused prove? This is answered in this case of Diego.
Diego was accused of willfully, unlawfully and feloniously having sexual intercourse with the daughter of his common law wife through force, violence and intimidation. To hide the identity of the victim so as to avoid embarrassment and humiliation, she will just be given a fictitious name of Ana.
In a straightforward, logical, probable and credible manner Ana tearfully narrated to the court the sexual intercourse she had undergone with Diego in the early morning of March 3, 2001 starting at about 3:30 a.m. when her mother and sister had just left for the market where they had a food stall. Ana recounted in detail the lascivious acts done on her by Diego prior to the actual sexual intercourse and the sexual intercourse itself as Diego poked a fan-knife at the right portion of her neck.
Diego did not deny the sexual intercourse between him and Ana. But he claimed it was not done through force and intimidation but that it was a consensual sex because he and Ana were sweethearts and they agreed to keep their relationship a secret. To prove his claim, Diego presented a document denominated as “Kasunduan Naming Dalawa” signed by Ana the day before she was raped although dated December 10, 1999. The said document shows that Ana received from Diego P1,500 and expects to receive the same amount from him on a monthly basis. Was Diego’s defense acceptable and valid?
No. Sweetheart defense is a much abused defense that rashly derides the intelligence of the court and sorely tests its patience. To be worthy of judicial acceptance such defense should be supported by documentary, testimonial and other evidence. Being an affirmative defense, it must be established with convincing evidence — like mementos, love letters, notes, pictures and the like. The sweetheart theory which Diego proffers is effectively an admission of carnal knowledge with the victim and consequently places on him the burden of proving the supposed relationship by substantial evidence. In the present case Diego failed to discharge this burden.
There was no substantial support to his claim that he and Ana were having an affair. The “Kasunduan” hardly constitutes proof that he and Ana were lovers. If any, it merely shows that Ana received money from Diego and expects to receive it monthly thereafter. No reason was specified why Diego agreed to give her such amounts of money.
Granting that Diego’s claim is true and that he and Ana were indeed lovers and that they agreed to keep their affair a secret, the latter would not have fabricated a charge of rape against him at the risk of exposing their illicit relationship, and thereby subjecting themselves to public shame and ridicule, not to mention the ire of Ana’s mother who is Diego’s common law wife (People vs. Tuazon, G.R. 168102, August 22, 2008)
Note: Books containing compilation of my articles on Labor Law and Criminal Law (Vols. I and II) are now available. Call tel. 7249445.
* * *
E-mail at: jcson@pldtdsl.net