3/27/2020 E-Library - Information At Your Fingertips: Printer Friendly the death of the seafarer is due to his own willful act, then the employer is not liable for death benefits. The seafarer in this case was found dead while hanging in an abandoned warehouse. While the employer presented a report, stating that the cause of death was asphyxia by hanging, the employer failed to investigate and, consequently, to present evidence on the circumstances surrounding the seafarer’s death to indicate that it was a suicide rather than a crime. The employer tried to bolster its theory of suicide by relying on the seafarer’s coemployees’ assertion that the deceased had an unidentified family problem. But this claim ran counter to the seafarer’s own letters to his family showing his excitement to go home. Under this evidentiary situation, the Court ruled: On these equivocal avowals, this Court is not prepared to rule that Ariel took his own life. The records are bereft of any substantial evidence showing that [the] respondent employer successfully discharged its burden of proving that Ariel committed suicide, so as to evade its liability for death benefits under POEA's Standard Employment Contract for Filipino Seaman. Unlike these cases, the circumstances surrounding Dennis were duly proven by the employer. That Dennis jumped, instead of fell, from the ship is a uniform finding of the labor tribunals and the CA. The employer also showed by substantial evidence what prompted Dennis to act as he did, without any contrary evidence submitted by Apolinario to dispute the employer’s evidence. ii. Shift in the burden of evidence; proof of insanity Since the POEA-SEC requires the employer to prove not only that the death is directly attributable to the seafarer himself but also that the seafarer willfully caused his death, evidence of insanity or mental sickness may be presented to negate the requirement of willfulness as a matter of counter-defense. Since the willfulness may be inferred from the physical act itself of the seafarer (his jump into the open sea), the insanity or mental illness required to be proven must be one that deprived him of the full control of his senses; in other words, there must be sufficient proof to negate voluntariness. In this regard, selected circumstances prior to and surrounding his death might have provided substantial evidence of the existence of such insanity or mental sickness.[37] In Crewlink,[38] we observed: xxx Homesickness and/or family problems may result to depression, but the same does not necessarily equate to mental disorder. The issue of insanity is a question of fact; for insanity is a condition of the mind not susceptible of the usual means of proof. As no man would know what goes on in the mind of another, the state or condition of a person’s mind can only be measured elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/thebookshelf/showdocsfriendly/1/57997 9/13