This case has been cited 5 times or more.
|
2015-12-09 |
DEL CASTILLO, J. |
||||
| More importantly, appellant admitted having sexual intercourse with "AAA" at the latter's house although he claimed that the sexual intercourse was consensual since they were lovers. The Court cannot subscribe to appellant's "sweetheart" theory and exculpate him from the charge. For one, such claim is self-serving since it was not substantiated by the evidence on record. And even if "AAA" and appellant were sweethearts, this fact does not necessarily negate rape. As has been consistently ruled, "a love affair does not justify rape, for the beloved cannot be sexually violated against her will."[13] "[L]ove is not a license for lust"[14] More importantly, what destroyed the veracity of appellant's "sweetheart" defense are "AAA's" credible declaration that he is not her sweetheart and her vehement denial that he courted her.[15] | |||||
|
2014-04-02 |
VILLARAMA, JR., J. |
||||
| Furthermore, appellant's bare invocation of the sweetheart theory cannot stand. To be credible, the sweetheart theory must be corroborated by documentary, testimonial, or other evidence.[14] Usually, these are letters, notes, photos, mementos, or credible testimonies of those who know the lovers.[15] Appellant's 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.[16] 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. | |||||
|
2012-02-22 |
LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, J. |
||||
| The issue of credibility of witnesses is "a question best addressed to the province of the trial court because of its unique position of having observed that elusive and incommunicable evidence of the witnesses' deportment on the stand while testifying, which opportunity is denied to the appellate courts"[34] and "[a]bsent any substantial reason which would justify the reversal of the trial court's assessments and conclusions, the reviewing court is generally bound by the former's findings, particularly when no significant facts and circumstances are shown to have been overlooked or disregarded which when considered would have affected the outcome of the case."[35] The Court of Appeals further affirmed the findings of the RTC. In this regard, it is settled that when the findings of the trial court have been affirmed by the appellate court, said findings are generally conclusive and binding upon this Court. [36] The Court finds no compelling reason herein to deviate from said findings. | |||||
|
2011-07-27 |
PEREZ, J. |
||||
| Accused's bare invocation of sweetheart theory cannot alone, stand. To be credible, it must be corroborated by documentary, testimonial, or other evidence. [42] Usually, these are letters, notes, photos, mementos, or credible testimonies of those who know the lovers. [43] | |||||
|
2010-02-04 |
PERALTA, J. |
||||
| In Criminal Case No. 12281, AAA is entitled to civil indemnity in line with prevailing jurisprudence that civil indemnification is mandatory upon the finding of rape.[55] | |||||