This case has been cited 5 times or more.
|
2014-12-03 |
PERLAS-BERNABE, J. |
||||
| Petitioner's argument is correct in theory since deliberation by all members of the collegial body is evidently what the rule contemplates, with the votes of only two (2) members being sufficient for a decision to prevail. Unfortunately, however, petitioner has not shown any proof that deliberations were not conducted by all commissioners before the questioned Judgment was made. The rule is well-settled that he who alleges a fact has the burden of proving it and a mere allegation is not evidence.[61] Thus, once more, his self-serving assertion cannot be given credence. This is especially so in light of the presumption of regularity, which herein ought to prevail due to the absence of any clear and convincing evidence to the contrary. Bustillo v. People[62] states: The presumption of regularity of official acts may be rebutted by affirmative evidence of irregularity or failure to perform a duty. The presumption, however, prevails until it is overcome by no less than clear and convincing evidence to the contrary. Thus, unless the presumption is rebutted, it becomes conclusive. Every reasonable intendment will be made in support of the presumption and in case of doubt as to an officer's act being lawful or unlawful, construction should be in favor of its lawfulness.[63] | |||||
|
2014-10-15 |
LEONEN, J. |
||||
| The presumption of regularity of official acts may be rebutted by affirmative evidence of irregularity or failure to perform a duty. The presumption, however, prevails until it is overcome by no less than clear and convincing evidence to the contrary. Thus, unless the presumption in [sic] rebutted, it becomes conclusive. Every reasonable intendment will be made in support of the presumption and in case of doubt as to an officer's act being lawful or unlawful, construction should be in favor of its lawfulness.[43] (Fimphasis supplied) | |||||
|
2012-07-30 |
VILLARAMA, JR., J. |
||||
| Anent Pinoy, the petitioner's failure to present the affidavit of the publisher attesting to Pinoy's being a newspaper of general circulation was fatal to the cause of the Prosecution, but not to the cause of the Defense. There was in favor of the petitioner the presumption of regularity in the performance of official duty from his availing of the publication services of Pinoy as a newspaper of general circulation.[33] The presumption could be rebutted only by the Prosecution adducing clear and convincing affirmative evidence of irregularity or failure to perform a duty.[34] Towards that end, every reasonable intendment was to be made in support of the presumption; in case of any doubt as to an officer's act being lawful or unlawful, the construction should be in favor of its lawfulness. Without the Prosecution adducing such rebutting evidence, the presumption became conclusive herein. | |||||
|
2011-03-09 |
PEREZ, J. |
||||
| The elements of the offense are as follows: (1) that the accused are public officers or private persons charged in conspiracy with them; (2) that said public officers commit the prohibited acts during the performance of their official duties or in relation to their public positions; (3) that they caused undue injury to any party, whether the Government or a private party; (4) OR that such injury is caused by giving unwarranted benefits, advantage or preference to the other party; and (5) that the public officers have acted with manifest partiality, evident bad faith or gross inexcusable negligence.[33] | |||||
|
2010-12-01 |
PEREZ, J. |
||||
| Pursuant to existing laws,[51] the foregoing entries are accorded prima facie weight. They are presumed to be true. Hence, unless rebutted by clear and convincing evidence, they can, and will, stand as proof of the facts attested.[52] In the case at bench, the petitioners and their siblings offered no such rebuttal. | |||||