This case has been cited 3 times or more.
|
2012-07-11 |
REYES, J. |
||||
| This Court cannot give credence to PCSO's claim to the contrary. PCSO did not present evidence, showing that New Dagupan had knowledge of the mortgage despite its being unregistered at the time the subject sale was entered into. Peralta, in the compromise agreement, even admitted that she did not inform New Dagupan of the subject mortgage.[42] PCSO's only basis for claiming that New Dagupan was a buyer in bad faith was the latter's reliance on a mere photocopy of TCT No. 52135. However, apart from the fact that the facsimile bore no annotation of a lien or encumbrance, PCSO failed to refute the testimony of Cuña that his verification of TCT No. 52135 with the Register of Deeds of Dagupan City confirmed Peralta's claim of a clean title. | |||||
|
2004-06-04 |
CALLEJO, SR., J. |
||||
| Q: When for (sic) the first time you saw the knife of Dumadag? A: When he held the shoulder (sic). Q: Where did he get the knife? … A: From his side.[29] On the other hand, the appellant's alibi is weak. It is settled that for the defense of alibi to prosper, the appellant must prove with clear and convincing evidence not only that he was some place else when the crime was committed, but also that it was physically impossible for him to be at the scene of the crime or its immediate vicinity when the crime was committed.[30] To prove his alibi, the appellant testified as follows: Q: Mr. Dumadag, you said that you borrowed money from Richard Masicampo, [Sr.] from where is this Richard Masicampo? A: From our sitio. | |||||
|
2004-04-14 |
CALLEJO, SR., J. |
||||
| The trial court correctly convicted the appellant of murder, qualified by treachery under Article 248 of the Revised Penal Code. There is treachery in the commission of the crime when (a) at the time of the attack, the victim was not in a position to defend himself; (b) the offender consciously and deliberately adopted the particular means, method and form of attack employed by him.[51] | |||||