This case has been cited 6 times or more.
|
2012-04-11 |
BERSAMIN, J. |
||||
| There can be no question that the testimony of a child who has been a victim in rape is normally given full weight and credence. Judicial experience has enabled the courts to accept the verity that when a minor says that she was raped, she says in effect all that is necessary to show that rape was committed against her.[22] The credibility of such a rape victim is surely augmented where there is absolutely no evidence that suggests the possibility of her being actuated by ill-motive to falsely testify against the accused.[23] Truly, a rape victim's testimony that is unshaken by rigid cross-examination and unflawed by inconsistencies or contradictions in its material points is entitled to full faith and credit.[24] | |||||
|
2012-01-25 |
LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, J. |
||||
| In reviewing rape cases, this Court had always been guided by three well-entrenched principles: (1) an accusation of rape can be made with facility and while the accusation is difficult to prove, it is even more difficult to disprove; (2) considering that in the nature of things, only two persons are usually involved in the crime of rape, the testimony of the complainant should be scrutinized with great caution; and (3) the evidence for the prosecution must stand or fall on its own merits and cannot be allowed to draw strength from the weakness of the evidence for the defense.[17] | |||||
|
2008-08-22 |
AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J. |
||||
| The Court is not persuaded and agrees with the CA that the "sweetheart defense" is a much-abused defense that rashly derides the intelligence of the Court and sorely tests its patience.[24] To be worthy of judicial acceptance, such a defense should be supported by documentary, testimonial or other evidence.[25] Being an affirmative defense, it must be established with convincing evidence - by some documentary and/or other evidence like mementos, love letters, notes, pictures and the like.[26] The "sweetheart theory" which appellant proffers is effectively an admission of carnal knowledge of the victim and consequently places on him the burden of proving the supposed relationship by substantial evidence.[27] In the present case, the appellant failed to discharge this burden. There was no substantial support to his claim that he and AAA were having an affair. The document denominated as Kasunduan Naming Dalawa[28] which was signed by the private complainant hardly constitutes proof that appellant and private complainant were lovers. If any, it merely shows that on December 10, 1999, AAA received from appellant the sum of P1,500.00 and expects to receive the same amount from appellant on a monthly basis thereafter. No reason was specified why appellant agreed to give her such amounts of money. Besides, the private complainant had explained that she was deceived into signing the said document the day before she was raped and that when she asked appellant why it was dated December 10, 1999, appellant told her that it was simply a sample form of a loan document.[29] | |||||
|
2008-04-22 |
CHICO-NAZARIO, J. |
||||
| This Court is in conformity with the findings of both the trial court and the appellate court that, indeed, the appellant and the private complainant were not sweethearts. The "sweetheart defense" is a much-abused defense that rashly derides the intelligence of the Court and sorely tests its patience. Being an affirmative defense, the allegation of a love affair must be supported by convincing proof. In the present case, other than the appellant's self-serving assertions, there was no support of his claim that he and AAA were lovers. His "sweetheart defense" cannot be given credence in the absence of corroborative proof like love notes, mementos, pictures or tokens, that such romantic relationship really existed.[45] Moreso, as the appellate court stated in its Decision, the following circumstances or actuations of the private complainant immediately after the alleged raped incident belies appellant's claim of such a relationship, to wit: (1) AAA immediately disclosed to her uncle that she was raped; (2) AAA immediately sought the help of the police authorities in apprehending the appellant; (3) AAA subjected herself to physical examination; (4) AAA outrightly filed the criminal complaint against the appellant; and (5) AAA never knew the name of the appellant until after the appellant's statement was taken at Police Station 6.[46] In addition, the corroborative testimony of Rizaldy that the private complainant and the appellant were sweethearts cannot be given any credit because of his relationship with the appellant. This Court notes that Rizaldy is the brother of the appellant and it is well settled that the testimonies of close relatives and friends are necessarily suspect and cannot prevail over the unequivocal declaration of the complaining witness.[47] | |||||
|
2007-09-05 |
CHICO-NAZARIO, J. |
||||
| The "sweetheart defense" is a much-abused defense that rashly derides the intelligence of the Court and sorely tests its patience.[27] Being an affirmative defense, it must be established with convincing evidence - by some documentary and/or other evidence like mementos, love letters, notes, pictures and the like.[28] Likewise, the "sweetheart theory" appellant proffers is effectively an admission of carnal knowledge of the victim and consequently places on him the burden of proving the supposed relationship by substantial evidence. To be worthy of judicial acceptance, such a defense should be supported by documentary, testimonial or other evidence.[29] In this case, however, the appellant failed to discharge this burden. Other than his self-serving assertions, there was no support to his claim that he and AAA were lovers. His "sweetheart defense" cannot be given credence in the absence of corroborative proof like love notes, mementos, pictures or tokens, that such romantic relationship really existed. Moreover, even the testimonies of the witnesses for the defense, i.e., Francisco and Wendy, proved that, indeed, the appellant and AAA were not lovers. Although the other defense witness, Jacqueline, claimed that the relationship of the appellant and AAA was of general knowledge to the community, she cannot name even a single person who knew of such relationship. We quote the testimonies of Francisco, Wendy and Jacqueline: Witness: FRANCISCO PORTUGAL, 30 years old, married, jobless, x x x. | |||||
|
2007-08-24 |
TINGA, J. |
||||
| The "sweetheart theory" is effectively an admission of carnal knowledge of the victim and consequently places on the accused the burden of proving the supposed relationship by substantial evidence. To be worthy of judicial acceptance, such a defense should be supported by documentary, testimonial, or other evidence.[41] Appellant presented her siblings, Estela and Niño Hapin, to testify on the alleged existence of an amorous relationship between him and AAA. The declarations of the siblings are understandably biased in favor of appellant who is their brother and their family's breadwinner. Absent any corroborative proof like love notes, mementos, pictures or tokens, that such romantic relationship had really existed,[42] this defense must be rejected. | |||||