Practice question
In an Article 36 proceeding, the court has otherwise competent evidence and correctly identifies clear and convincing evidence as the governing quantum. It then says that this standard requires eliminating every possible theoretical doubt and achieving absolute certainty. Which assessment is sound?
- The court correctly states absolute certainty as the intermediate standard
- Every psychological-incapacity case requires more than criminal proof
- The standard is satisfied by any weak allegation instead
- The court has overstated the quantum; Tan-Andal places it above preponderance but below proof beyond reasonable doubt
- The court must decide solely by whether counsel uses the word clear
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.