Dear PAO,
My kumare’s daughter was allegedly raped by her teacher. The teacher claims that they are in love. The victim neither confirms nor denies the relationship. Can the teacher still be held criminally liable even if they are indeed in a loving relationship?
Eubanks
Dear Eubanks,
Considering the narrated facts, the teacher may still be held criminally liable.
The teacher is trying to invoke the jurisprudential “sweetheart theory” as a defense. In People of the Philippines vs. Sernadilla, G.R. No. 201147, September 21, 2022, Ponente: Associate Justice Samuel H. Gaerlan, the Supreme Court ruled that such defense does not necessarily negate the absence of consent to the sexual encounter, saying:
“The accused-appellant’s defense anchored on the “sweetheart theory” deserves scant consideration. Jurisprudence instructs that “sweetheart theory” in rape is not credible when it is based on the bare testimony of the accused as the same is self-serving. The theory needs strong corroboration in that even the testimony of a relative will not suffice. A sweetheart defense, to be credible, should be substantiated by evidence of the romantic relationship such as love letters, memento or pictures. This is glaringly lacking here despite the accused-appellant’s submission that he and AAA have been in a relationship for at least two (2) years. The testimonies offered by the defense to prove such romantic relationship are insufficient, inasmuch as they do not directly attest to its existence but only relate to the interaction of AAA and accused-appellant. What they narrated to have witnessed are equivocal acts not necessarily indicative of a romantic relationship. The same holds true with the photographs submitted.
At any rate, even lacking the same propositions and assuming further as true the accused-appellant’s submission that he and AAA are sweethearts, the existence of such relationship is not tantamount to consent. Proof of romantic relationship does not necessarily indicate consent nor negate the absence of consent to the sexual encounter. As the Court previously ruled, “a love affair does not justify rape, for the beloved cannot be sexually violated against her will. Love is not a license for lust.””
Thus, for “sweetheart theory” to prosper, it must be substantiated by evidence of the romantic relationship. Self-serving testimonies alone are insufficient, as they do not directly prove the existence of such a relationship. Even then, conclusive proof of a romantic relationship does not necessarily prove the consent of a rape victim during the sexual act. Accordingly, the teacher may still be held criminally liable, as the gravamen of Rape is sexual congress with a woman without her consent, regardless of whether or not a romantic relationship exists between the perpetrator and the victim.
We hope that we were able to answer your queries. This advice is solely based on the facts you have narrated and our appreciation of the same. Our opinion may vary when other facts are changed or elaborated.
Thank you for your continued trust and support.
Editor’s note: Dear PAO is a daily column of the Public Attorney’s Office. Questions for Chief Acosta may be sent to dearpao@manilatimes.net
