Being In A Relationship Doesn't(!) Automatically Mean Sexual Consent, The Supreme Court Says

Because love is not meant to be forced.

Published on Jun 28, 2025

PHOTO: Canva Pro/macniak

When it comes to love, many people assume that certain things come automatically like sacrifice, compromise, or even physical intimacy. Some still believe that being in a relationship means saying "yes" to sex, no questions asked.

But the Supreme Court (SC) has made it clear: that's not how it works.

In G.R. No. 264724 promulgated on February 3, 2025, the SC emphasized that being in a relationship does not automatically imply consent to sex. The Court, in its decision convicting the accused, used the terms "victim" and "abuser," rather than simply as people in a relationship, establishing that forced consent constitutes to rape.

"The Supreme Court has reiterated that a victim's admission of being in a relationship with her abuser does not imply consent to sex," the SC said. "Clear and convincing evidence of consent is still required," it added.

They clarified this in a post originally published by the Supreme Court Public Information Office:

View this post on Instagram

This decision strikes at the heart of a long-contested legal tactic known as the sweetheart theory.

When Is It Considered Rape? Supreme Court Rules No Penetration Needed

‘No amount of anatomical discourse should ever erase the heinousness of this crime.’

What Is The Sweetheart Theory And Why Love Doesn't Mean Consent

The sweetheart theory is a defense strategy often used in sexual assault cases where the accused claims that their romantic relationship with the victim invalidates the possibility of rape. The argument goes: "We were in a relationship, so it couldn't have been rape."

It's a narrative rooted in the idea that affection automatically equates to sexual consent—an idea that's been used to downplay or dismiss the experiences of survivors. But courts have increasingly rejected this defense, especially when power dynamics, coercion, threats, or lack of affirmative consent are involved.

As the SC put it in the decision: "Love is not a license for lust. A love affair does not justify rape, for the beloved cannot be sexually violated against her will."

The Case Behind The Ruling

The ruling stems from the case of Jhopet Hernandez Toralde, an adult man who claimed to be in a romantic relationship with a 14-year-old girl. Despite her refusal to engage in sex, Toralde allegedly threatened to leak a video of them kissing to her family. Out of fear, she gave in.

Given that the victim was only 14 years old—below the age of sexual consent in the Philippines (16 years old, under R.A. 11648)—the case already met the criteria for statutory rape. But the Court went further: it rejected the sweetheart theory as a valid defense, citing the use of threats and intimidation as further grounds for conviction.

Toralde was found guilty of rape, with the SC affirming that all legal elements of the crime were present, including lack of consent and use of coercion.

Consent Is Still The Law

The ruling sends a powerful message: You can be in love, in a long-term relationship, or even married, but if there's no consent, it's still rape. Period.

Under Philippine law, Republic Act 8353 or the Anti-Rape Law of 1997 defines rape not just by the act, but by the absence of consent. The law recognizes rape when:

Force, threat, or intimidation is used;

The victim is unconscious or deprived of reason;

Fraudulent manipulation or abuse of authority is involved;

The victim is under 12 years old or is mentally incapable of giving consent.

At the end of the day, consent is universal, non-negotiable, and must be crystal clear. No buts. No ifs.

Editor's Note: This article is for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice.

Getting Cheated On By Your Husband Is Considered Psychological Violence By Supreme Court

Marital infidelity goes against the Anti-VAW act.

Making the world a better place, one story at a time