PROBLEMS WITH JURISPRUDENCE

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES VS. ARSENIO CABANILLA

G.R. No. 185839, November 17, 2010

FACTS: On the evening of March 6, 1979, AAA asked Arsenio Cabanilla to
accompany her on her way home since she felt safe with him being the
nephew of her husband. Cabanilla agreed. While they were walking
through the rice fields, Cabanilla made advances to molest AAA. The
latter resisted, forcing the former to strike her left jaw twice and squeeze
her neck while being threatened that he will kill her. Cabanilla was able to
have carnal knowledge of AAA. Upon reaching home, she immediately
told her husband, BBB, of the incident. They went to the house of the
Barangay Councilman to report the incident and thereafter, AAA was
accompanied for medical examination. Dr. Banez examined her vagina
and found moving sperm in her vaginal canal and also noted a contusion
on her left jaw and scratched on her neck.
A criminal charge was filed against Cabanilla. On his defense,
Cabanilla used the sweetheart theory as the basis of his claim that the
sexual intercourse between him and AAA on March 6, 1979 was
consensual as they were lovers. He denied having forced himself on her
and even claimed that they already had six or seven sexual encounters
prior to March 6, 1979. To corroborate his sweetheart theory, the defense
placed on witness stand Gregorio Bilag, Gerry Velasco and Herminia
Cabebe.
The RTC found Cabanilla guilty as charged and sentenced him to
Reclusion Perpetua. On appeal, the CA affirmed the assailed decision.

ISSUE: Should the sweetheart defense be given credence so as to
consider the intercourse consensual?

RULING: NO. The Court is not persuaded by the sweetheart theory
claimed by Cabanilla.
The sweetheart defense is a much-abused defense that rashly
derides the intelligence of the Court. Being an affirmative defense, the
invocation of a love affair must be supported by convincing proof.
In this case, apart from his self-serving assertions, Cabanilla
offered no sufficient and convincing evidence to substantiate his claim
that they were lovers and to overcome AAAs spontaneous and credible
testimony buttressed by the medico-legal findings. To prop up his defense
of an illicit affair, Cabanilla relied on the testimonies of Velasco, Bilag and
Herminia. The Court found the story of Cabanillas witnesses wanting of
convincing and credible corroboration, mainly for seven reasons:
1. Velasco did not even testify on any intimacy but only on
the normal acts of two people "talking nicely" and walking
together.
2. No romantic relationship can be deduced from the fact that
the two opted to walk from Barangay San Jose to
Barangay Rivadavia, where both resided. The Court finds it
easier to believe that they walked home together because
she trusted Cabanilla as a relative who would protect her
from the dangers of the road at nighttime and not for any
intimate reason.
3. Bilags lack of knowledge of English is not an excuse for he
could have easily relayed such important piece of
information in Ilocano. (Bilags testimony was he saw AAA
and Cabanilla copulated with each other in the middle of
the rice fields and thereafter went on their way walking
side-by-side and laughing. Bilag recalled that he gave a
written statement before a police investigator explaining
that he did not mention in his sworn statement that he
saw Cabanilla and AAA make love on March 6, 1979
because he did not understand English. He claimed that he
did not know the contents of his written statement when
he affixed his signature thereon as they were not
translated to him in the Ilocano dialect.)
4. Herminias testimony that he and AAA were sweethearts
cannot be given any credence precisely because they are
siblings. It is well settled that testimonies of close relatives
and friends are necessarily suspect and cannot prevail
over the unequivocal declaration of a complaining witness.
5. AAAs swift revelation of the outrage committed against
her person bares her firm resolve to immediately vindicate
her lost honor and pride and to have the sex molester
punished, notwithstanding the inconvenience, ridicule and
scandal of a public trial.
6. Cabanilla failed to ascribe, much less prove, any ill motive
on the part of AAA that could have compelled her to falsely
accuse him of committing the crime. Such failure
strengthens her credibility and the validity of the charge.
7. Granting that they were lovers, this fact alone could not
have ruled out rape as it did not necessarily mean there
was consent. A love affair does not justify rape.

The SC affirmed the decision of the CA.