This case has been cited 3 times or more.
|
2010-03-15 |
VILLARAMA, JR., J. |
||||
| Petitioner's allegation of improper venue and the fact that the complaint was not under oath are not sufficient grounds for the dismissal of the complaint. Well to remember, the case was an administrative case and as such, technical rules of procedure are liberally applied. In administrative cases, technical rules of procedure and evidence are not strictly applied and administrative due process cannot be fully equated with due process in its strict judicial sense. [25] The intention is to resolve disputes brought before such bodies in the most expeditious and inexpensive manner possible. [26] | |||||
|
2007-07-30 |
CHICO-NAZARIO, J. |
||||
| Sec. 2. Proof beyond reasonable doubt. - In a criminal case, the accused is entitled to an acquittal, unless his guilt is shown beyond reasonable doubt. Proof beyond reasonable doubt does not mean such a degree of proof as, excluding possibility of error, produces absolute certainty. Moral certainty only is required, or that degree of proof which produces conviction in an unprejudiced mind. Thus, considering the difference in the quantum of evidence, as well as the procedure followed and the sanctions imposed in criminal and administrative proceedings, the findings and conclusions in one should not necessarily be binding on the other.[36] Notably, the evidence presented in the administrative case may not necessarily be the same evidence to be presented in the criminal cases. The prosecution is certainly not precluded from adducing additional evidence to discharge the burden of proof required in the criminal cases. Significantly, the prosecution had manifested that it would present testimonial evidence which was not presented in the administrative case. | |||||
|
2005-06-08 |
CHICO-NAZARIO, J. |
||||
| Kinship alone does not establish bias and partiality.[22] Bias and partiality cannot be presumed. In administrative proceedings, no less than substantial proof is required.[23] Mere allegation is not equivalent to proof.[24] Mere suspicion of partiality is not enough. There should be hard evidence to prove it, as well as manifest showing of bias and partiality stemming from an extrajudicial source or some other basis.[25] Thus, in the case at bar, there must be convincing proof to show that the members of the fact-finding committee unjustifiably leaned in favor of one party over the other. In addition to palpable error that may be inferred from the decision itself, extrinsic evidence is required to establish bias.[26] The petitioner miserably failed to substantiate her allegations. In effect, the presumption of regularity in the performance of duty prevails.[27] | |||||