Proving the sweetheart defense
In People v. Bautista[1] the Supreme Court laid down the requirements before the accused can seek refuge behind the "sweetheart defense" to wit:
Firstly, in order to prove that the accused and the victim are indeed sweethearts, the Supreme Court ruled in a long line of cases that it is incumbent upon the accused to present documentary and/or other evidence of the relationship like mementos, love letters, notes, pictures and the like.[2]
Secondly, in People v. Flores,[3] the Supreme Court ruled that in rape through force or intimidation, the force employed by the guilty party need not be irresistible. It is only necessary that such force is sufficient to consummate the purpose for which it was inflicted. Similarly, intimidation should be evaluated in light of the victim's perception at the time of the commission of the crime. It is enough that it produced the fear in the mind of the victim that if she did not yield to the bestial demands of her ravisher, some evil would happen to her at that moment or even thereafter. Hence, what is important is that because of force and intimidation, the victim was made to submit to the will of the accused.
In rape, the "sweetheart" defense must be proven by compelling evidence: first, that the accused and the victim were lovers; and, second, that she consented to the alleged sexual relations. The second is as important as the first, because this Court has held often enough that love is not a license for lust.
Firstly, in order to prove that the accused and the victim are indeed sweethearts, the Supreme Court ruled in a long line of cases that it is incumbent upon the accused to present documentary and/or other evidence of the relationship like mementos, love letters, notes, pictures and the like.[2] Secondly, in People v. Flores,[3] the Supreme Court ruled that in rape through force or intimidation, the force employed by the guilty party need not be irresistible. It is only necessary that such force is sufficient to consummate the purpose for which it was inflicted. Similarly, intimidation should be evaluated in light of the victim's perception at the time of the commission of the crime. It is enough that it produced the fear in the mind of the victim that if she did not yield to the bestial demands of her ravisher, some evil would happen to her at that moment or even thereafter. Hence, what is important is that because of force and intimidation, the victim was made to submit to the will of the accused.
[1] G.R. No. 140278, June 3, 2004, 430 SCRA 469, 471.
[2] See People v. San Antonio, Jr., 559 Phil. 188, 201-202 (2007).
[3] 423 Phil. 687, 698-699(2001).
