THE Supreme Court (SC) has ruled that a victim’s admission that she is in a relationship with her abuser does not imply consent to sex.
The ruling is contained in a decision promulgated on February 3, 2025 but only made public on June 25, where the SC’s Second Division found accused Jhopet Toralde guilty of raping her 14-year old girlfriend.
The decision was penned by Associate Justice Jhosep Lopez.
Records of the case indicate that Toralde showed up unannounced at the victim’s house one night in October 2017.
After finding her alone, he supposedly insisted on having sex, but the victim purportedly refused because she was on her period.
The victim alleged that Toralde threatened to show her family a video of them kissing if she refused to have sex with him. Out of fear, she gave in.
Two days later, the victim’s grandmother noticed blood on her undershirt and asked her what happened. The victim then disclosed that Toralde had forced her to have sex, prompting them to report the incident to the police.
During the trial, the defense claimed that Toralde didn’t force the sex because he and the victim were in a romantic relationship – a defense known as the “sweetheart theory.”
But the regional trial court rejected his argument and convicted Toralde under Republic Act 7610 or the Anti-Child Abuse Law.
Toralde appealed his conviction before the Court of Appeals, which upheld the trial court’s decision, prompting him to elevate the case to the SC.
However, the SC declared him guilty of rape under the Revised Penal Code, saying that all elements of the crime were present, including the use of threats and intimidation to force sexual intercourse.
“To sustain a charge of rape, the confluence of the following elements must be proven by the prosecution: ( 1) the offender had carnal knowledge of a woman and (2) he accomplished the act through force, threat or intimidation, or when she was deprived of reason or otherwise unconscious, or when she was under 12 years of age or was demented. In the present case, this Court observes that all the elements of rape are present. The evidence proves that petitioner, through threats and intimidation, had carnal knowledge of the victim on the evening of October 26, 2017, when the latter was only 14 years old, as confirmed by her birth certificate,” the SC ruling said.
“As further proven by the records, petitioner Toralde, who was senior to the victim by four years, manipulated and subjected her to molestation, under the threat of ruining her reputation by exposing her explicit video to her relatives. It is not difficult to imagine that such imminent threat weakened the victim’s resistance and deprived her of the will to escape, leaving her with no choice but to submit to the petitioner’s carnal desires,” the SC added.
The High Court also rejected Toralde’s sweetheart defense, saying that being in a relationship does not grant the right to force sex, adding that proving a romantic relationship is not enough as there must be clear evidence of consent.
“Notwithstanding the proven fact of their relationship, this Court adds posthaste that this would not necessarily establish consent. As ruled in Olesco, it is insufficient to merely prove that the accused and the victim were lovers; it must likewise be shown via compelling evidence that the victim consented to the sexual relations. The second element is as important as the first element, because this Court has held often enough that love is not a license for lust. Consistently, a love affair does not justify rape, for the beloved cannot be sexually violated against her will,” the SC ruled.
“Under the aegis of the foregoing framework, this Court cannot extend credence to the petitioner’s invocation of the sweetheart theory, due to the victim’s lack of consent,” it added.
With the modification of Toralde’s crime to rape, the SC imposed the penalty of reclusion perpetua or a maximum of 40 years in prison under Article 266-B of the Revised Penal Code.
He was also ordered to pay the victim P225,000 in damages, which the SC said shall earn interest at the rate of 6 percent per annum from the date of finality of this decision until fully paid.
Concurring with the decision are Senior Associate Justice Marvic Leonen and Associate Justices Amy Lazaro-Javier, Mario Lopez, and Antonio Kho Jr.
