G.R. No.

 152133             February 9, 2006
ROLLIE CALIMUTAN vs. PEOPLE
 x x x [I]t was Dra. Conchita Ulanday, Municipal Health Officer
of Aroroy, Masbate was the first physician of the government
who conducted an examination on the cadaver of the victim
Philip Cantre whose findings was that the cause of his death
was due to food poisoning while the second government
physician NBI Medico Legal Officer Dr. Ronaldo Mendez
whose findings was that the cause of the death was due to a
traumatic injury of the abdomen caused by a lacerated spleen
and with these findings of two (2) government physicians
whose findings are at variance with each other materially, it is
humbly contended that the same issue raised a reasonable
doubt on the culpability of the petitioner.
• x x x [I]t was Dra. Conchita Ulanday, Municipal Health
Officer of Aroroy, Masbate was the first physician of the
government who conducted an examination on the dead 
body of the victim Philip Cantre whose findings was that
the cause of his death was due to food poisoning while
the second government physician NBI Medico Legal
Officer Dr. Ronaldo Mendez whose findings was that the
cause of the death was due to an abdominal  injury 
caused by a lacerated spleen and with these findings of
two (2) government physicians whose findings are at
variance with each other materially, it is humbly
contended that the same issue raised a reasonable doubt
on the culpability of the petitioner
 G.R. No. 49549 August 30, 1990
EVELYN CHUA-QUAvs. HON. JACOBO C. CLAVE
• . . While admittedly, no one directly saw Evelyn Chua and Bobby Qua doing
immoral acts inside the classroom it seems obvious and this Office is convinced
that such a happening indeed transpired within the solitude of the classroom
after regular class hours. The marriage between Evelyn Chua and Bobby Qua is
the best proof which confirms the suspicion that the two indulged in amorous
relations in that place during those times of the day. . . .

• With the finding that there is no substantial evidence of the imputed immoral
acts, it follows that the alleged violation of the Code of Ethics governing school
teachers would have no basis. Private respondent utterly failed to show that
petitioner took advantage of her position to court her student. If the two
eventually fell in love, despite the disparity in their ages and academic levels, this
only lends substance to the truism that the heart has reasons of its own which
reason does not know. But, definitely, yielding to this gentle and universal
emotion is not to be so casually equated with immorality. The deviation of the
circumstances of their marriage from the usual societal pattern cannot be
considered as a defiance of contemporary social mores.
 A.M. No. 997 September 10, 1979
PILAR ABAIGAR vs DAVID D.C. PAZ
What conclusion then can a reasonable mind draw from the
given premises? Either complainant was so helplessly naive
as to be beguiled by respondent's blandishments or.
comprehending fully the legal impossibility of the fulfillment
of his marriage proposals, she unconditionally laid herself
prostrate to his charms, too much enamored of him to care
about anything else. For, as philosopher Blaise Pascal has so
pithily stated of the profundity of human love, 'love has
reasons that reason cannot explain.' Since complainant
cannot hide behind the camouflage of innocence,
considering her intellectual capacity and educational
background, no other conclusion is possible 'except that she
voluntarily submitted to sexual intimacy with respondent
without entertaining any illusion or hope of sublimating the
illicit relations by legal union.