This case has been cited 3 times or more.
|
2007-10-02 |
CHICO-NAZARIO, J. |
||||
| The "sweetheart theory" or "sweetheart defense" is an oft abused justification that rashly derides the intelligence of this Court and sorely tests our patience.[30] By asserting the existence of such a relationship, accused-appellant seeks to prove that AAA willingly participated in the sexual act. But she did not. Accused-appellant is but a neighbor. From the testimony of AAA, he was nothing more than an acquaintance. Therefore, contrary to his claim that such familiarity explains the mutual attraction that was spawned in a day's time, this Court's estimation is that if at all there was attraction, it was merely one-sided from his end. Absent any other tangible and concrete evidence of a relationship beyond acquaintanceship or neighborly relations, we cannot give credence to accused-appellant's self-serving claim of intimate association between him and AAA that would validate the sexual intercourse that occurred on the date and time in question. | |||||
|
2001-03-30 |
BELLOSILLO, J. |
||||
| Lastly, accused-appellant insists that the sexual congress between him and Lina was in fact an act of two (2) consenting adults. This "sweetheart theory" is a much abused defense that "rashly derides the intelligence of the Court and sorely tests its patience."[21] We cannot imagine that a countrified lass, barely in her teens, will have the courage to engage in sexual intercourse with her middle-aged employer a week after commencing with her employment. Besides, two (2) lovers, even in the height of passion, will not choose a rain-drenched and dirt-littered grassy lot to consummate their sexual engagement in the wee hours of the morning. What is most telling however is the conduct of Lina after the incident. She not only revealed her nightmarish defilement to Criselda as soon as she got home but also immediately reported the matter to the police. Clearly, that he and Lina were lovers is a mere concoction of a desperate mind. | |||||
|
2000-03-02 |
QUISUMBING, J. |
||||
| Anent the first issue, the well-entrenched rule is that the evaluation of the credibility of witnesses and their testimonies is a matter best undertaken by the trial court, because of its unique opportunity to observe the witnesses and their demeanor, conduct, and attitude, especially under cross-examination.[16] Appellate courts are bound by the findings of the trial court in this respect, unless it is shown that the trial court has overlooked, misunderstood, or misappreciated certain facts and circumstances which if considered would have altered the outcome of the case.[17] Our own review of the victimÕs testimony confirms the conclusion of the trial court that "her testimony deserves full faith and credence."[18] The alleged inconsistency in her testimony pertaining to the pain she felt during the rape is only a minor detail and should detract from the weight and credibility of her testimony.[19] Errorless recollection of a harrowing incident cannot be expected of a witness especially when she is recounting details of an experience so humiliating and so painful as rape.[20] | |||||