 Hence, such allegation alone is not sufficient to hold respondent administratively

liable. As complainants, they have the burden of proving by substantial evidence

the allegations in their complaint. Basic is the rule that mere allegation is not
evidence and is not equivalent to proof. Charges based on mere suspicion and
speculation likewise cannot be given credence and cannot be given credence.
Hence, when the complainant relies on mere conjectures and suppositions, and
fails to substantiate his allegations, the administrative complaint must be dismissed
for lack of merit (Manalabe vs. Cabie, A.M. No. P-05-1984, July 6, 2007).
 There was no strong, competent, relevant and direct evidence submitted by the
prosecution that will support the allegation that the act being complained of were
committed by herein respondent. Otherwise, an allegation of an offense shall only
be treated as a mere hearsay which cannot stand even in an administrative
proceeding. It is axiomatic that he who alleges must prove the same, each party in
an administrative case must prove his affirmative allegation with substantial
evidence – the complainant has to prove the affirmative allegations in his
complaint, and the respondent has to prove the affirmative allegations in his
affirmative defenses and counterclaims (Ang Tibay v. Court of Industrial Relations,
G.R. No. L-46496, February 27, 1940.)

 Without such competent evidence to vividly demonstrate how the violation was
committed, it is but reasonable and legal that the respondent should enjoy the
PRESUMPTION OF REGULARITY in the performance of his sworn duty over the
self-serving testimony of the private complainant. Bad faith cannot be presumed;
it must be proved by clear and convincing evidence (Fernando vs. Sto. Tomas,
G.R. 112309, July 28, 1994.) As held in a long line of cases, evidence, to be worthy
of credit, must not only proceed from a credible source but must, in addition, be
credible itself. And by this is meant that it shall be natural, reasonable and probable
as to make it easy to believe (Fernando vs. Sto. Tomas, G.R. 112309, July 28,
1994.)

 The Supreme Court once ruled that “the fundamental rule in administrative
proceedings is that the complainant has the burden of proving, by substantial
evidence, the allegation in his complaint.” Substantial evidence, which is more than
a scintilla but is such relevant as a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to
support a conclusion, would suffice to hold one administratively liable. The
standard of substantial evidence is satisfied when there is reasonable ground to
believe that respondent is reasonable for the misconduct complained of, even if
such evidence might not necessary import preponderance of evidence as is
required in criminal cases, it should be enough for a reasonable mind to support a
conclusion.

 It is well-settled rule in the administrative proceedings that evidence required to

support a decision in a contested case is only substantial evidence. Substantial
evidence or the evidence required to reach the conclusion in administrative
proceedings or to establish a fact before administrative and quasi-judicial bodies,
 means such relevant evidence as a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to
support a conclusion and its absence is not shown by stressing that there is
contrary evidence on record, direct or circumstantial. It means that more than a
scintilla but may be somewhat less than preponderance, even if other reasonable
mind might conceivably opine otherwise.

 Our administrative laws require that if a police officer should be disciplined for
misconduct or any graver offense, the evidence against him should be competent
and derived from direct knowledge. Before any member of the PNP could be
faulted, competent evidence should be presented, since the charge is penal in
character. Thus, the ground for the removal of a police officer should be
established based on substantial evidence. Such is the rule where the charge on
which removal is sought is misconduct in office, willful neglect, corruption, or
incompetence. The general rules in regard to admissibility of evidence in criminal
trials also apply.

 Lastly, it is one of the fundamental policies of the PNP that it will not hesitate to
impose appropriate administrative penalties against any of its erring and abusive
members if their guilt is proved by the required substantial evidence. In the same
manner that it will not also allow any PNP members to suffer from any unfounded
and malicious prosecution including administrative sanctions from any
unmeritorious and baseless accusations.

 Private Complainant cannot overcome the respondent's denials without presenting

competent evidence to show the truth of the allegations. As held in Lagasca v. De
Vera et al (G.R. No. L-1649 October 29, 1947), “When there is controversy on a
fact, the controversy can only be decided with the evidence in view. He who alleges
a fact has the burden of proving it. Mere allegation is not evidence. Much as we
may value complainant’s allegations, the law imposes on us the duty of not
accepting them if he is challenged by respondent unless proved by competent
evidence.”
