This case has been cited 4 times or more.
|
2009-05-15 |
QUISUMBING, J. |
||||
| Consequently, as the issue of malice was raised, it was incumbent on petitioner to prove the same. The basic rule is that mere allegation is not evidence, and is not equivalent to proof.[18] As correctly stated by the Court of Appeals, while the questioned news item was found to be untrue, this does not necessarily render the same malicious. | |||||
|
2006-08-03 |
PER CURIAM |
||||
| In administrative proceedings, the complainant has the burden of proving, by substantial evidence, the allegations in the complaint.[18] Mere allegation is not evidence[19] and it is not equivalent to proof.[20] There is nothing in the records to indicate that respondent sheriff failed to execute and file returns for 229 writs. Since complainant judge failed to substantiate this allegation, the Court cannot hold respondent sheriff liable. | |||||
|
2005-09-26 |
CHICO-NAZARIO, J. |
||||
| Beyond the bare allegations that the respondent Judge and the respondent Sheriff committed grave abuse of authority, there is nothing in the records that would indicate that they, indeed, committed the crime charged. We have stressed time and again that allegations must be proven by sufficient evidence. Mere allegation is not evidence,[20] and is not equivalent to proof.[21] | |||||
|
2005-02-17 |
CHICO-NAZARIO, J. |
||||
| In administrative proceedings, the quantum of proof necessary for a finding of guilt is substantial evidence or such relevant evidence as a reasonable mind may accept as adequate to support a conclusion.[12] Further, the complainants have the burden of proving by substantial evidence the allegations in their complaint.[13] The basic rule is that mere allegation is not evidence,[14] and is not equivalent to proof.[15] | |||||