c. Substantial Evidence

SUBSTANTIAL EVIDENCE

In cases filed before administrative and quasijudicial bodies, a fact may be deemed established if it is supported by substantial evidence.

Substantial evidence is that amount of relevant evidence which a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to justify a conclusion. (Rule 133, Sec. 6) As in all administrative cases, the quantum of proof necessary in election cases is substantial evidence, or such relevant evidence as a reasonable mind will accept as adequate to support a conclusion. (Sabili v. Comelec, G.R. No. 193621, 2012)

> RULE 128

GENERAL PROVISIONS Section 1. Evidence defined. – Evidence is the means, sanctioned by these [R]ules, of ascertaining in a judicial proceeding the truth respecting a matter of fact. (1) Section 2. Scope. – The rules of evidence shall be the same in all courts and in all trials and hearings, except as otherwise provided by law or these [R]ules. (2) Section 3. Admissibility of evidence. – Evidence is admissible when it is relevant to the issue and not excluded by the Constitution, the law or these Rules. (3a) Section 4. Relevancy; collateral matters. – Evidence must have such a relation to the fact in issue as to induce belief in its existence or non-existence. Evidence on collateral matters shall not be allowed, except when it tends in any reasonable degree to establish the probability or improbability of the fact in issue. (4)

Quantum of proof in application for issuance of writ of amparo:

• Establish claims by substantial evidence
• If respondent is a private individual or entity, he must prove that ordinary diligence was observed in the performance of duty
• If public official or employee, he must prove that extraordinary diligence was observed in the performance of duty. (Sec. 17, A.M. No. 07-9- 12-SC)

Note: Respondent public official of employee cannot invoke the presumption of regularity.

Note: The failure to establish that the public official observed extraordinary diligence in the performance of duty does not result in the automatic grant of the privilege of the amparo writ. It does not relieve the petitioner from establishing his or her claim by substantial evidence. The omission or inaction on the part of the public official provides, however, some basis for the petitioner to move and for the court to grant certain interim reliefs. (Yano v. Sanchez, G.R. No. 186640, 2010)