I. Introduction
The “sweetheart defense” is a recurring argument in Philippine rape prosecutions, where the accused claims that a romantic relationship existed with the complainant, thereby implying that the sexual act was consensual. This defense is often invoked to negate the element of force, threat, or intimidation required for a conviction of rape.

II. Legal Basis
A. Statutory Law
Under Article 266-A of the Revised Penal Code, as amended by the Anti-Rape Law of 1997 (RA 8353), rape is committed when a man has carnal knowledge of a woman under certain circumstances, including through force, threat, or intimidation, or when the offended party is under twelve years of age or is demented. The law does not recognize a romantic relationship as a defense per se; the focus remains on the presence or absence of consent.

B. Child Protection Laws
For cases involving minors, RA 11648 (2022) and related statutes provide that consent is immaterial when the victim is below the statutory age or is exploited in prostitution or subjected to sexual abuse. The law is explicit that a child cannot validly give consent to sexual acts, regardless of any alleged romantic relationship.

III. Jurisprudential Treatment
A. General Principles
The Supreme Court has consistently held that the sweetheart defense, to be credible, must be substantiated by clear and convincing evidence of a romantic relationship and, crucially, of the victim’s consent to the sexual act. Mere allegations or self-serving statements are insufficient.

“To pass muster, this Court, in People v. Olesco, requires that the defense must prove with compelling evidence the following elements: first, that the accused and the victim were lovers; and second, that she consented to the alleged sexual relations. As indicia of the purported relationship between the accused and the victim, evidence such as letters, documents, photographs, ‘or any concrete proof of a romantic nature’ must be proffered.”
— Toraldeyhernandez v. People of the Philippines (2025)

Even if a romantic relationship is established, it does not automatically negate the crime of rape. The Supreme Court has repeatedly emphasized:

“Love is not a license for carnal intercourse through force or intimidation. Even granting that appellant and complainant were really sweethearts, that fact alone would not negate the commission of rape. A sweetheart cannot be forced to have sex against her will.”
— Toraldeyhernandez v. People of the Philippines (2025)

B. Application in Recent Cases
In People v. Sernadilla (2022), the Court reiterated that the sweetheart theory is not credible when based solely on the accused’s testimony. Even if a romantic relationship is proven, it does not equate to consent for every sexual act.

Similarly, in People v. Quinto (2020), the Supreme Court rejected the sweetheart defense due to lack of corroborative evidence and stressed that the existence of a romantic relationship does not preclude the commission of rape.

C. Special Rule for Minors
For victims below the statutory age or those exploited in prostitution or sexual abuse, the sweetheart defense is categorically unavailing. As held in People v. Udang, Sr. (2018):

“For purposes of sexual intercourse and lascivious conduct in child abuse cases under RA 7610, the sweetheart defense is unacceptable. A child exploited in prostitution or subjected to other sexual abuse cannot validly give consent to sexual intercourse with another person. The language of the law is clear: it seeks to punish those who commit the act of sexual intercourse or lascivious conduct with a child exploited in prostitution or subjected to sexual abuse. Unlike rape, therefore, consent is immaterial in cases involving violation of Section 5, Article III of RA 7610. The mere act of having sexual intercourse or committing lascivious conduct with a child who is exploited in prostitution or subjected to sexual abuse constitutes the offense. It is a malum prohibitum, an evil that is proscribed.”
— People v. Udang, Sr. (2018)

IV. Summary Table: Sweetheart Defense in Rape Cases
SCENARIO IS SWEETHEART DEFENSE VALID? KEY REQUIREMENT/RULE AUTHORITY
Adult victim, alleged romantic relation Possible, but rarely upheld Must prove both relationship and actual consent to the specific act J2, J1, J6
Minor victim (statutory rape/abuse) Not valid Consent is immaterial; law presumes lack of capacity to consent L1, J5
Child exploited in prostitution/abuse Not valid Consent is immaterial; mere act constitutes the offense L1, J5

V. Conclusion

The sweetheart defense is a much-abused and generally disfavored argument in Philippine rape cases. The Supreme Court requires compelling evidence of both a romantic relationship and actual consent to the sexual act. Even then, consent is immaterial in cases involving minors or children exploited in prostitution or sexual abuse. The consistent judicial approach is to prioritize the protection of victims, especially minors, and to scrutinize the sweetheart defense with utmost caution.