Practice question
A party argues that clear and convincing evidence necessarily means an expert must testify in every Article 36 case, regardless of other competent evidence. Under Tan-Andal, is that automatic expert requirement correct?
- No; the Court distinguishes the quantum from a mandatory expert form and permits appropriate ordinary-witness evidence
- Yes; exactly one expert is always indispensable
- Yes; three experts automatically establish the case
- No; therefore ordinary unsupported assertions always suffice
- Yes; the judge must accept every diagnosis as conclusive
Legal references
- https://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2021/may2021/gr_196359_2021.html — Tan-Andal v. Andal, G.R. No. 196359, May 11, 2021, EN BANC MAIN decision (clear and convincing evidence; Article 36).
- https://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2025/aug2025/gr_259322_2025.html — Chan Tee Ten v. Tee Ten, G.R. No. 259322, August 6, 2025, MAIN decision (clear and convincing quantum reaffirmed).
- https://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2025/apr2025/gr_265570_2025.html — People v. Akil, G.R. No. 265570, April 7, 2025, MAIN decision (police-initiated private questioning of a detainee and custodial confession).
- https://lawphil.net/courts/rules/pdf/am_19-08-15-sc_2019.pdf — A.M. No. 19-08-15-SC, current Rules 128 §3, 130 §§21–22, 131 §1, 133 §§1–2,4–6.
- https://lawphil.net/consti/cons1987.html — 1987 Constitution, Article III §§2–3,12,14 (exclusionary protections and due process).
Answer this question in flashcards to review your response and continue practicing.