This case has been cited 1 times or more.
|
2008-10-08 |
BRION, J. |
||||
| We fully support these findings. As we emphasized in People v. Apostol,[35] the "sweetheart" defense is a much-abused defense. As an affirmative defense, the allegation of a love affair must be supported by convincing proof other than the self-serving assertions of the accused.[36] It cannot be given credence in the absence of evidence, such as notes, gifts, pictures, mementos or other tokens independently proving its existence; nor can it be given weight where no other witness was presented to testify that the accused and the complainant were indeed sweethearts.[37] The sweetheart defense is considered an uncommonly weak defense because its presence does not automatically negate the commission of rape. The gravamen of the crime of rape is sexual congress of a man with a woman without her consent. Hence, notwithstanding the existence of a romantic relationship, a woman cannot be forced to engage in sexual intercourse against her will. | |||||