This case has been cited 2 times or more.
|
2000-09-12 |
GONZAGA-REYES, J. |
||||
| Fraud, in its general sense, is deemed to comprise anything calculated to deceive, including all acts, omissions, and concealment involving a breach of legal or equitable duty, trust, or confidence justly reposed, resulting in damage to another, or by which an undue and unconscientious advantage is taken of another.[28] It is a generic term embracing all multifarious means which human ingenuity can devise, and which are resorted to by one individual to secure an advantage over another by false suggestions or by suppression of truth and includes all surprise, trick, cunning, dissembling and any unfair way by which another is cheated.[29] On the other hand, deceit is the false representation of a matter of fact, whether by words or conduct, by false or misleading allegations, or by concealment of that which should have been disclosed which deceives or is intended to deceive another so that he shall act upon it to his legal injury.[30] | |||||
|
2000-06-27 |
MENDOZA, J. |
||||
| In a similar case,[39] this Court held:There is no controversy as to the fact that Carolina Isidro was taken away by Serafin Castillo and Marcelo Lugod against her will. Counsel for appellant admits this and it is well supported by the evidence. Now, the question would be: Were lewd designs sufficiently proven to constitute the case one of forcible abduction? The trial court's finding is fully supported by evidence. It is admitted that Serafin Castillo was a rejected suitor of Carolina Isidro with no hope of having her in marriage. His persistent offers of love and marriage had been decidedly spurned. It was in the evening of March 27 when he took the girl by force, and at that time the office of the justice of the peace is usually closed and no marriages are therein solemnized much less at a moment's notice without previously fulfilling the requisites provided by law. Castillo took the girl in a carretela to a distance much farther than the municipal building of Aliaga, and he proceeded with her to that building only by the warning of a grave danger ahead. In the carretela he forcibly embraced her, kissed her, and handled her against her will. No protestation of noble intentions can obviate the conclusion that all these acts proved lewd designs. Would a man intent on marriage so act? Appellant Castillo claims these acts were intended simply to add to the persuasive force of his matrimonial offer. This merits no consideration at all. It is a defense that can be put up even by one who commits rape, that the girl will eventually yield to marriage. | |||||