Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 100 views

    People of The Philipines Vs Elmer Baldo

    Uploaded by

    Nhardz Briones
    The court rejected the defendant's "sweetheart defense" that claimed the sexual act was consensual. The court ruled that love does not justify rape, and compelling evidence like tokens or photos is required to support such a defense, not just testimonial evidence. While the victim did not shout or resist, the court stated each victim responds differently and resistance is not required to prove rape occurred. The presence of a weapon showed the defendant used force and intimidation.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    People of The Philipines Vs Elmer Baldo

    Uploaded by

    Nhardz Briones
    100 views1 page
    The court rejected the defendant's "sweetheart defense" that claimed the sexual act was consensual. The court ruled that love does not justify rape, and compelling evidence like tokens or photos is required to support such a defense, not just testimonial evidence. While the victim did not shout or resist, the court stated each victim responds differently and resistance is not required to prove rape occurred. The presence of a weapon showed the defendant used force and intimidation.

    Original Description:

    case digest

    Original Title

    People of the Philipines Vs Elmer Baldo

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    The court rejected the defendant's "sweetheart defense" that claimed the sexual act was consensual. The court ruled that love does not justify rape, and compelling evidence like tokens or photos is required to support such a defense, not just testimonial evidence. While the victim did not shout or resist, the court stated each victim responds differently and resistance is not required to prove rape occurred. The presence of a weapon showed the defendant used force and intimidation.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    100 views1 page

    People of The Philipines Vs Elmer Baldo

    Uploaded by

    Nhardz Briones
    The court rejected the defendant's "sweetheart defense" that claimed the sexual act was consensual. The court ruled that love does not justify rape, and compelling evidence like tokens or photos is required to support such a defense, not just testimonial evidence. While the victim did not shout or resist, the court stated each victim responds differently and resistance is not required to prove rape occurred. The presence of a weapon showed the defendant used force and intimidation.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    of 1

     

    People of the Philipines Vs. Elmer Baldo

    G.R. No. 175238 February 24, 2009

    Ruling:

    The "sweetheart theory" or "sweetheart defense" is an oft-abused justification that rashly derides the
    intelligence of this Court and sorely tests our patience. For the Court to even consider giving credence to
    such defense, it must be proven by compelling evidence. The defense cannot just present testimonial
    evidence in support of the theory, as in the instant case. Independent proof is required -- such as tokens,
    mementos, and photographs. There is none presented here by the defense.

    Moreover, even if it were true that they were sweethearts, a love affair does not justify rape. As wisely
    ruled in a previous case, a man does not have the unbridled license to subject his beloved to his carnal
    desires.

    AAA’s failure to shout or to tenaciously resist appellant should not be taken against her since such
    negative assertion would not ipso facto make voluntary her submission to appellant’s criminal act. In
    rape, the force and intimidation must be viewed in the light of the victim’s perception and judgment at
    the time of the commission of the crime. As already settled in our jurisprudence, not all victims react the
    same way. Some people may cry out, some may faint, some may be shocked into insensibility, while
    others may appear to yield to the intrusion. Some may offer strong resistance while others may be too
    intimidated to offer any resistance at all. Moreover, resistance is not an element of rape. A rape victim
    has no burden to prove that she did all within her power to resist the force or intimidation employed
    upon her. As long as the force or intimidation is present, whether it was more or less irresistible is
    beside the point. In this case, the presence of a fan knife on hand or by his side speaks loudly of
    appellant’s use of violence, or force and intimidation.

    You might also like