This case has been cited 6 times or more.
|
2008-10-10 |
REYES, R.T., J. |
||||
| In administrative proceedings, the complainant has the burden of proving the allegations in the complaint.[43] Absent substantial evidence to prove the falsity of the TOR presented by Galicia duly signed by the College Registrar at that time, We are constrained to uphold his innocence of the charges of falsification. | |||||
|
2008-08-13 |
AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J. |
||||
| On the first issue, well-entrenched is the rule that administrative offenses do not prescribe.[12] Administrative offenses by their very nature pertain to the character of public officers and employees. In disciplining public officers and employees, the object sought is not the punishment of the officer or employee but the improvement of the public service and the preservation of the public's faith and confidence in our government.[13] | |||||
|
2008-08-13 |
AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J. |
||||
| In Melchor v. Gironella,[14] the Court held that the period stated in Section 20(5) of R.A. No. 6770 does not refer to the prescription of the offense but to the discretion given to the Ombudsman on whether it would investigate a particular administrative offense. The use of the word "may" in the provision is construed as permissive and operating to confer discretion.[15] Where the words of a statute are clear, plain and free from ambiguity, they must be given their literal meaning and applied without attempted interpretation.[16] | |||||
|
2008-01-18 |
QUISUMBING, J. |
||||
| On the matter of the alleged spurious ER copies, we agree with the protestee that the protestant had not adequately and convincingly rebutted the presumption that as public documents, the Congress-retrieved ER copies, used for the proclamation of the protestee by the NBC, are authentic and duly executed in the regular course of official business. The evidence adduced by protestee to show that the supposed security features and markings in the Congress-retrieved ERs and the COMELEC/NAMFREL's copies are different, did not categorically establish that the Congress-retrieved ERs are fake and spurious. To overcome the presumption of regularity, there must be evidence that is clear, convincing and more than merely preponderant. Absent such convincing evidence, the presumption must be upheld.[41] In fact, the records show that even the witnesses presented by the protestant testified that they were able to discern security features and markings in the Congress-retrieved ERs. The records also show that witnesses were not made to examine all Congress-retrieved ERs in making observations relative to security features and markings, but only a sample set thereof was utilized, resulting in grave insufficiency in the evidence presented by protestant. | |||||
|
2005-12-14 |
TINGA, J. |
||||
| It should be stressed that in administrative proceedings, complainant has the burden of proving the allegations in the complaint. We cannot depend on mere conjectures and speculations. There must be substantial evidence to support respondent's guilt.[24] | |||||
|
2005-09-30 |
PANGANIBAN, J. |
||||
| That witnesses must be examined and presented during the trial,[50] and that their testimonies must be confined to personal knowledge is required by the rules on evidence, from which we quote: "Section 36. Testimony generally confined to personal knowledge; hearsay excluded. A witness can testify only to those facts which he knows of his personal knowledge; that is, which are derived from his own perception, except as otherwise provided in these rules."[51] On this basis, the trial court correctly refused to admit Jesus Cortez's Affidavit, which respondent had offered as evidence.[52] Well-settled is the rule that, unless the affiant is presented as a witness, an affidavit is considered hearsay.[53] | |||||