3/27/2020 E-Library - Information At Your Fingertips: Printer Friendly discretion since conclusive proof is not necessary to establish willfulness. Lastly, we must point out that this case is not one of doubt reasonably arising from the evidence. In that case, we would have resolved the case in favor of the seafarer. From the prism of the initial Rule 65 petition that the CA faced, and eventually the Rule 45 petition now before this Court, we find that the petitioners sufficiently established that Dennis willfully caused his death while Apolinario’s evidence fell short of substantial evidence to establish its counter-defense of insanity. In other words, Apolinario’s complaint must be dismissed not because of doubt but because of the insufficiency of his evidence to support his claim of insanity. WHEREFORE, premises considered, the petition for review is GRANTED. The assailed decision and resolution of the Court of Appeals are REVERSED and SET ASIDE. SO ORDERED. Carpio, (Chairperson), Del Castillo, Mendoza, and Leonen, JJ., concur. [1] Rollo, pp. 9-37; filed under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court. [2] Id. at 48-57, penned by Associate Justice Arcangelita M. Romilla-Lontok and concurred in by Associate Justices Jose L. Sabio, Jr., and Sixto C. Marella, Jr. [3] Id. at 45-46. [4] Id. at 109. [5] Id. at 95; Siador’s Position Paper, par. 2. [6] Section 20 (A) 1. [7] And an additional amount of US$7.000.00 to each child under the age of twenty-one (21) but not to exceed four (4) children. [8] Article 26, Annex 4. [9] And US$15,000.00 to each dependent child under the age of twenty-one (21), subject to a maximum of three (3). [10] Rollo, p. 130. [11] Id. at 111. [12] It appears though that Agile, through Barcelona, had no objection to paying elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/thebookshelf/showdocsfriendly/1/57997 11/13