1. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES vs.

REYNALDO OLESCO Y ANDAYANG

G.R. No. 174861 April 11, 2011
2. G.R. No. 200508 September 4, 2013
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINE, vs.CHRISTOPHER RIVERA Y ROYO,
ACCUSED-APPELLANT.
Once inside the room, AAA professed her love for him and is ready to face
the consequences of their acts. They started kissing each other after a
brief conversation. He started undressing AAA and the latter assisted him
in removing her pants. AAA took a bath while Rivera went downstairs to
buy "banana que" and buko juice. AAA got annoyed when he told her that
they would eat as soon as they are downstairs. AAA got dressed and went
out of the room ahead of him.

REQUISITES FOR SWEETHEART THEORY AS A

DEFENSE IN RAPE
Appellant Jose Dioquino was charged with eight counts of rape allegedly
committed against ABC, a minor. Upon arraignment, appellant entered a
plea of not guilty to all the charges as stated in the informations. Trial
ensued.
ABC, the victim, testified that she was raped on several occasions by the
accused. According to her, the appellant hit her in the abdomen before the
appellant raped her. This testimony of the victim was corroborated by the
medical findings conducted by the Municipal Health Officer of Matnog,
Sorsogon.
On the other hand, appellant presented the sweetheart defense. Claiming
to be ABCs boyfriend, appellant took the witness stand and asserted that
the alleged rapes complained against him were, in reality, the mutual acts
of young lovers. Having made love to said minor two months after she
became his girlfriend, appellant claimed that he engaged in a string of
consensual sexual encounters with ABC, with whom he eloped at her
suggestion. Also, presented a handwritten document whereby ABC
acknowledged the voluntariness of her elopement with appellant.
The RTC found appellant guilty of seven counts of rape and sentenced him
to reclusion perpetua for each count. The RTC further ordered appellant to
indemnify ABC in the amount of P50,000 as civil indemnity and P50,000 as
moral damages and to pay the costs. The RTC did not give any credence to
appellants sweetheart defense for it was admittedly not supported by any
evidence of their relationship. Moreover, the existence of force and
intimidation was proven by the prosecution for each of the times appellant
had carnal knowledge of ABC.
On appeal, the CA affirmed appellants conviction for seven counts of rape
but modified the monetary damages awarded. The CA agreed with the RTC

that ABCs testimony was candid, straightforward, and credible. In trying

to impute ill motive on ABCs testimony, appellant claimed that ABCs
mother concocted the rape charges because she disapproved of their
relationship. However, this self-serving assertion was easily debunked by
his own witness who testified that he helped pacify appellant who threw
an uncontrollable fit because ABCs parents were forcing him to marry
their daughter. The CA added that appellant failed to prove that they were
really lovers. ABCs supposed acknowledgment of elopement contained in
a handwritten document made by appellants own uncle and her
affirmative answer to the police investigators question whether she went
with appellant voluntarily cannot be taken as evidence of existing
relationship between ABC and appellant. The CA held that the extrajudicial admissions, made in the absence of ABCs parents and in the
presence of appellants relatives and police, if given any evidentiary value
at all, merely prove that she went with appellant voluntarily but does not
disprove the rape.
ISSUE:
Is the appellant's invocation of the sweetheart theory persuasive?
RULING:
Appellant's invocation of the sweetheart theory is NOT persuasive.
Appellants bare invocation of the sweetheart theory cannot stand. To be
credible, the sweetheart theory must be corroborated by documentary,
testimonial, or other evidence. Usually, these are letters, notes, photos,
mementos, or credible testimonies of those who know the lovers.
Appellants defense admittedly lacks these pieces of evidence. In adopting
the sweetheart theory as a defense, however, he necessarily admitted
carnal knowledge of ABC, the first element of rape. This admission makes
the sweetheart theory more difficult to defend, for it is not only an
affirmative defense that needs convincing proof, but also after the
prosecution has successfully established a prima facie case, the burden of
evidence is shifted to the accused, who has to adduce evidence that the
intercourse was consensual. No such evidence was presented to show that
the several episodes of sexual intercourse were consensual. The medical
examination done on ABC debunks any claim of appellant that he did not
force himself upon ABC.
Appellant also cannot benefit from the so-called acknowledgment
executed by ABC that she voluntarily went with him considering the
circumstances surrounding its execution. The RTC and CA correctly
considered that the acknowledgment was written by the Barangay Captain
who happened to be appellant's uncle and the acknowledgment was made
without the participation of ABC and her parents. In any event, as
observed by the CA, even if the Court gives evidentiary weight to the
document, such does not disprove rape.
THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES vs. JOEL DIOQUINO Y GARBIN

Rape; sweetheart theory. For the sweetheart theory to be

believed when invoked by the accused, convincing evidence to prove the
existence of the supposed relationship must be presented by the
proponent of the theory. For the [sweetheart] theory to prosper, the
existence of the supposed relationship must be proven by convincing
substantial evidence. Failure to adduce such evidence renders his claim to
be self-serving and of no probative value. For the satisfaction of the Court,
there should be a corroboration by their common friends or, if none, a
substantiation by tokens of such a relationship such as love letters, gifts,
pictures and the like. In the present case, although it is a person other
than the accused who is claiming to be the victims sweetheart and the
father of her child, such an assertion must nonetheless be believably
demonstrated by the evidence. The defense failed to discharge the burden
of proving that AAA and Jackie Gucela had any kind of romantic or sexual
relationship which resulted in AAAs pregnancy.
People of the Philippines v. Mervin Gahi, G.R. No. 202976,
February 19, 2014.