Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

LILY O. ORBASE v. OFFICE OF OMBUDSMAN

This case has been cited 3 times or more.

	GR No. 208976 2014-10-13	OFFICE OF OMBUDSMAN v. LEOVIGILDO DELOS REYES LEONEN, J.
In administrative cases, it is sufficient that "there is reasonable ground to believe that the petitioner is guilty of the act or omission complained of, even if the evidence' might not be overwhelming."[69]
	GR No. 176702 2013-11-13	OFFICE OF OMBUDSMAN v. MARCELINO A. DECHAVEZ BRION, J.
This Court cannot be any clearer in laying down the rule on the quantum of evidence to support an administrative ruling: "In administrative cases, substantial evidence is required to support any findings. Substantial evidence is such relevant evidence as a reasonable mind may accept as adequate to support a conclusion. The requirement is satisfied where there is reasonable ground to believe that the petitioner is guilty of the act or omission complained of, even if the evidence might not be overwhelming."[14]
	GR No. 153809 2011-07-27	ELOISA L. TOLENTINO v. ATTY. ROY M. LOYOLA LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, J.
In administrative cases, substantial evidence is required to support any finding. Substantial evidence is such relevant evidence as a reasonable mind may accept as adequate to support a conclusion. The requirement is satisfied where there is reasonable ground to believe that the petitioner is guilty of the act or omission complained of, even if the evidence might not be overwhelming.[14] While in criminal cases, the accused is entitled to an acquittal, unless his guilt is shown beyond a reasonable doubt.[15] Proof beyond reasonable doubt does not mean evidence that which produces absolute certainty; only moral certainty is required or that degree of proof which produces conviction in an unprejudiced mind.[16]