Sweetheart Defense: Consent May Be Implied

People vs Carlito Claro y Mahinay, GR No. 199894, 5 April 2017

"Yet, it is not fair and just to quickly reject the defense of consensual sexual intercourse interposed by the accused. To be noted first and foremost is that he and AAA were adults capable of consenting to the sexual intercourse. The established circumstances -their having agreed to go on a lovers' date; their travelling together a long way from their meeting place on board the jeepney; their alighting on Rizal Avenue to take a meal together; their walking together to the motel, and checking in together at the motel without the complainant manifesting resistance; and their entering the designated room without protest from her -indicated beyond all doubt that they had consented to culminate their lovers' date in bed inside the motel. Although she claimed that he had held her by the hand and pulled her upstairs, there is no evidence showing that she resisted in that whole time, or exhibited a reluctance to enter the motel with him. Instead, she appeared to have walked with him towards the motel, and to have entered it without hesitation. What she did not do was eloquent proof of her consent."

Read in full:
http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2017/apr2017/gr_199894_2017.html


Random Thoughts:

At first glance, this ruling seems innocent enough. But after thinking of the real-life implications of this case, things might get a bit messy. There is now a blurry area in the sweetheart defense, in my opinion. If a woman goes to a motel without protest,  this is a manifestation of her implied consent to the apparent proposal of consummation. Never mind the other factors. There was a date, a motel, and her entering it.  That's it. 

It would also seem that it would be difficult to prove that she has changed her mind. The Supreme Court has actually already made it easier for the accused. Now, all he has to do is to court her and then make sure she voluntarily enters the hotel. After that, he says-she says scenario and boom! The seed of doubt is planted.

In a nutshell:

With the Maghinay case, it seems that a "no" is not a "no" if they are sweethearts in a hotel because her actions apparently implied "yes."

Women, beware.