The Supreme Court (SC) has ruled that a victim’s admission of being in a relationship with her abuser does not imply consent to sex, as a clear and convincing evidence of consent is still required.
In a decision written by Associate Justice Jhosep Lopez, the SC’s Second Division found Jhopet Hernandez Toralde guilty of raping a 14-year old girl.
Records show that Toralde showed up unannounced at the victim’s house one night. Finding her alone, he insisted on having sex, but she refused because she was on her period. He then threatened to show her family a video of them kissing. 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 sex because he and the victim were in a romantic relationship – a defense known as the “sweetheart theory”.
The Regional Trial Court convicted Toralde of sexual abuse under the Anti-Child Abuse Law, or Republic Act 7610, a ruling later affirmed by the Court of Appeals.
However, the SC declared him guilty of rape under the Revised Penal Code, citing that all elements of the crime were present, including the use of threats and intimidation to force sexual intercourse.
The SC rejected Toralde’s sweetheart defense, affirming that being in a relationship does not grant the right to force sex. It stressed that proving a romantic relationship is not enough – there must be clear evidence of consent.
“Love is not a license for lust,” the SC added, “and a love affair does not justify rape, for the beloved cannot be sexually violated against her will.”
Toralde was sentenced to suffer the penalty of reclusion perpetua, or a maximum of 40 years in prison, and ordered to pay the victim P225,000 in damages, the SC Office of the Spokesperson said in a press release June 25.
In another decision made public June 26, the SC ruled that a spouse’s inability to love or emotionally connect with their partner—if rooted in a genuine personality disorder—may be considered evidence of psychological incapacity and grounds to declare a marriage void.
In a decision written by Senior Associate Justice Marvic Leonen, the SC’s Second Division reinstated the earlier ruling of an RTC, declaring a couple’s marriage void from the beginning due to the husband’s psychological incapacity to fulfill his marital duties.
The couple met in 1999 and married secretly in 2002. They didn’t live together immediately, as the husband worked in Saudi Arabia. In 2004, they had a church wedding during his visit to the Philippines, after which he returned abroad. The husband returned to the Philippines in 2005. They lived together occasionally and had two children—a son in 2007 and a daughter in 2012. However, they were only physically together for about five years, and their relationship was marked by frequent arguments and periods of separation.
In 2016, the husband filed a petition to nullify the marriage, supported by a psychologist’s diagnosis of his Passive-Aggressive Personality Disorder, which made it difficult for him to maintain close relationships.
The RTC initially granted the petition but reversed its decision after the Office of the Solicitor General raised concerns about due process. The Court of Appeals later denied the husband’s appeal.
However, the SC ruled in his favor, finding that he had sufficiently proven psychological incapacity.
Under Article 36 of the Family Code, a marriage is void if one or both spouses are psychologically unable to fulfill their marital duties—even if the condition becomes evident only after the wedding. “The incapacity must be deeply rooted in the person’s character and must have existed before the marriage.”
The SC clarified that psychological incapacity could manifest long after the wedding, so a spouse who initially appears capable may later show signs of inability. “If this comes from a genuine psychological condition, the marriage can still be declared void.”
It emphasized that “loving one’s spouse is an important, if not the most important, essential marital obligation. It found that the husband no longer loved his wife, and that this inability to love her is rooted in his personality, caused by an emotionally immature parent. For these reasons, the husband must not be forced to stay in a loveless marriage, and his marriage must be voided.” ||
