JOYCE M.

TONGZON

CASE STUDY

In the case at bar, Romeo’s allegation is tenable and will prosper.

The law provides, that administrative substantial evidence, is the

quantum of proof in administrative cases.

Well settled, that substantial evidence is such amount of relevant

evidence which a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to
support a conclusion. It is more than a mere scintilla of evidence. The
standard of substantial evidence is satisfied when there is reasonable
ground to believe, based on the evidence submitted, that the
respondent is responsible for the misconduct complained of. It need not
be overwhelming or preponderant, as is required in an ordinary civil case,
or evidence beyond reasonable doubt, as is required in criminal cases,
but the evidence must be enough for a reasonable mind to support a
conclusion.

In the present case, there was no doubt that exhibits of evidences

showcased by Mr. Romeo can hold water, enough to conclude the
punishments of the offenders.

LEGAL REMEDIES:

He could file the following against the accused and respondents

the following;

i. Physical Injuries he suffered evidencing medico legal and

corroborative evidence by eye witnesses.
ii. Direct Assault of Persons in authority - one who is directly
vested with jurisdiction to execute or enforce the laws
iii. Separate civil action on Damages
iv. Administrative case filed in the Civil Service Commission.

LEGAL BASIS:

I. Art. 263. (RPC) Serious physical injuries. — Any person who

shall wound, beat, or assault another, shall be guilty of the crime
of serious physical injuries.
II. Art. 148 (RPC) Direct Assault on Persons in Authority.
 III. Article 100 of the RPC, which expressly provides that "every
person criminally liable for a felony is also civilly liable.
IV. CIVIL SERVICE LAW: a. Gross Misconduct b. Conduct
unbecoming of a Public Official and conduct prejudicial to the
interest of the service c. Violation of the code of ethical
standards

AS PROSECUTOR:

I will DISMISS the case filed by Pagatpats against Romeo on

Child Abuse and Perjury.
A. For RA 7610 (Anti-Child Abuse Law) to prosper;
1. Committed against children. Who are considered children?- Persons below 18
years of age OR- Over 18 but are unable to fully take care of themselves or
protect themselves
2. There is abuse, neglect, cruelty, exploitation, or discrimination.

Here, Romeo is just following a DEPED Order which is the

trimming of the hair. And nothing on his intention to abuse, neglect,
exploit or discriminate Matt. Thus, no merit on this case.

B. Art. 183 (RPC) Perjury Case to prosper;

1.That the accused made a statement under oath or executed an

affidavit upon a material matter.
2.That the statement or affidavit was made before a competent officer,
authorized to receive and administer oath.
3.That in the statement or affidavit, the accused made a willful and
deliberate assertion of a falsehood.
4.That the sworn statement or affidavit containing the falsity is required
by law or made for a legal purpose.

The willful and deliberate assertion of falsehood—is

essential but very difficult to prove. Perjury being a felony, there must
be malice on the part of the accused. Willfully means intentionally, with
evil intent and legal malice, with consciousness that the alleged
perjuriously statement is false with the intent that it should be received
as a statement of what was true in fact. It is equivalent to knowingly. In
this case, nothing on the given facts that would lead to Rome guilty of
Perjury. Failure to identify the affidavits renders them inadmissible
under the hearsay evidence rule.

Thus, the case filed by Pagatpats should be dismiss for lack

of merit.
ADMINISTRATIVE ARBITER:

I will take jurisdiction on the complaints for those who are

government employees covered by civil service law and as well
respondents to this case. The filling of the separate criminal and civil
cases is not prejudicial to the filling of administrative matters.

Take note that due process in this proceedings should be

observed. Exhaustion of administrative remedies is part of the process.
So therefore it is encouraging to the parties to settled it first to their level
before bringing it to higher tribunal, the opportunity to explain one’s
side or the opportunity to seek a reconsideration of the action or ruling
complained of is essential.

The requirement of notice and hearing does not connote

full adversarial proceedings. Meaning this is not a trial type, like the
court. It is important that a fair and reasonable opportunity to explain
one’s side suffices to meet the requirements of due process. The
provisions of the Rules of Court may be applied suppletorily to the rules
of procedure of administrative bodies exercising quasi-judicial powers,
unless otherwise provided by law or the rules of procedure of the
administrative agency concerned.

My decision on this case would be based on substantial

evidence, the quantum of proof in administrative cases. The evidence
must be enough for a reasonable mind to support a conclusion.

CONCLUSION

Therefore, on the legal basis and supporting arguments

presented above. It is crystal clear that Pagatpats and other cohorts
are guilty of the offense charge may it be administrative, civil or
criminal as the case may be.