3/27/2020 E-Library - Information At Your Fingertips: Printer Friendly and judged by his behavior. Establishing the insanity of an accused requires opinion testimony which may be given by a witness who is intimately acquainted with the person claimed to be insane, or who has rational basis to conclude that a person was insane based on the witness’ own perception of the person, or who is qualified as an expert, such as a psychiatrist. No such evidence was presented to support the respondent's claim. But his strange behavior cannot be the basis for a finding of grave abuse of discretion because portions of the Crewmembers’ Statement itself rendered the basis for a finding of insanity insufficient. To recall, a few hours before the accident, Filipino crew members approached Dennis to ask him if anything was wrong with him and Dennis simply replied that everything was in order. No proof was ever adduced as well showing that whatever personal problems Dennis had were enough to negate the voluntariness he showed in stepping overboard. The Court observes that, more often than not, the question of willfulness in causing one’s death is explained away as arising from insanity because the very nature of the defense that the employer is allowed to put up is mentally tough to grasp. Differences of opinion can arise and have arisen, as in this case; hence, it becomes imperative for the courts to proceed on the basis of a correct framework of review if stability and consistency in rulings can be approximated. In the present case, as the petitioners correctly argued, the CA did not expressly find any grave abuse of discretion on the part of the NLRC. What is clear is that the CA simply disagreed with the NLRC’s conclusion of willfulness. Unless the CA’s basis for its disagreement, however, amounted to grave abuse of discretion, it is in legal error in reversing the final and executory ruling of the NLRC on certiorari. By erroneously proceeding in its appreciation of the parties’ respective burdens of proof and burden of evidence, the CA erroneously, too, required the petitioners to show “conclusive proofs”[39] of willfulness or establish it “with absolute certainty.”[40] As a result, the CA itself had to engage in speculation to debunk the required willfulness that the petitioners already established. The CA held: The Master’s Statement that Able Seaman Tamayo saw Siador jump overboard and thereafter made no effort to reach the life ring after it was thrown to him are not conclusive proofs that Siador took his own life. His alleged jumping overboard from a height equivalent to a five storey building might have caused undue pressure for him to temporary lose his composure which prevented him from seeking the life ring. A life ring may likewise be not that visible at a distance of 25 meters from Siador’s position considering the waves at the sea. [Emphasis ours] While the NLRC may have erred in declaring that there is “no doubt”[41] that Dennis committed suicide by jumping overboard, this error does not amount to grave abuse of elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/thebookshelf/showdocsfriendly/1/57997 10/13