This case has been cited 5 times or more.
|
2011-12-07 |
TOSINO v. SPS. ANDRES T. ROSARIO AND LENA DUQUE-ROSARIO AND BANCO FILIPINO SAVINGS AND MORTGAGE BANK
LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, J. |
||||
| In the meantime, Dr. Rosario acquired another loan from the Philippine National Bank (PNB) sometime in 1979-1981. Records do not reveal though the original amount of the loan from PNB, but the loan agreement was amended on March 5, 1981 and the loan amount was increased to P450,000.00. The loan was secured by mortgages constituted on the following properties: (1) Lot No. 356-A, covered by TCT No. 52751 in Dr. Rosario's name; (2) Lot No. 4489, with an area of 1,862 square meters, located in Dagupan City, Pangasinan, covered by TCT No. 24832; and (3) Lot No. 5-F-8-C-2-B-2-A, with an area of 1,001 square meters, located in Nancayasan, Urdaneta, Pangasinan, covered by TCT No. 104189. [21] The amended loan agreement and mortgage on Lot No. 356-A was annotated on TCT No. 52751 on March 6, 1981 as Entry No. 520099. [22] | |||||
|
2004-06-29 |
QUISUMBING, J. |
||||
| Consensual sexual congress as an affirmative defense needs convincing proof such as love notes, mementos, and credible witnesses attesting to the consensual romantic relationship between the offender and his supposed victim.[34] Having admitted to carnal knowledge of the complainant, the burden shifts to the appellant to prove his defense by substantial evidence.[35] In the instant cases, however, we find that other than appellant's preposterous tale, there is no scintilla of evidence whatsoever to support his changed theory based on the victim's alleged consent. Furthermore, even assuming arguendo, that there was some form of amorous relationship, such averment will not necessarily rule out the use of force or intimidation by appellant to have sex against her will.[36] | |||||
|
2004-06-03 |
PANGANIBAN, J. |
||||
| Finally, the fact that she promptly reported her ravishment to her parents and the authorities supports the finding that she had indeed been defiled by appellant. Such conduct further bolstered her credibility.[34] | |||||
|
2003-03-26 |
PER CURIAM |
||||
| Consequently, the issue in a rape case boils down to the credibility of the victim.[12] In scrutinizing such credibility, jurisprudence has established the following doctrinal guidelines: (1) the appellate tribunal will not disturb the findings of the lower court unless there is a showing that it had overlooked, misunderstood, or misapplied some fact or circumstance of weight and substance that would have affected the result of the case; (2) the findings of the trial court pertaining to the credibility of witnesses are entitled to great respect and even finality since it had the opportunity to examine their demeanor as they testified on the witness stand; and (3) a witness who testified in a categorical, straightforward, spontaneous and frank manner and remained consistent on cross-examination is a credible witness.[13] | |||||
|
2001-02-19 |
QUISUMBING, J. |
||||
| The gravamen of the offense of rape as defined by Article 335 of the Revised Penal Code is sexual intercourse with a woman against her will or without her consent.[18] In this case, it is not disputed that appellant had sexual relations with the victim. However, he interposes the defense that these acts were consensual, done with neither force nor intimidation, and were initiated by private complainant herself. Having admitted to having had carnal knowledge of complainant several times, appellant now bears the burden of proving his variant of the "sweetheart defense," which could be an illicit but consensual affair.[19] | |||||