5/28/2020 E-Library - Information At Your Fingertips: Printer Friendly The logical inconsistency created by the ponencia 's observation is even more alarming. As observed by Moradas himself, if he indeed soaked his hands in a can full of thinner, then his hands must have sustained the injuries, if not the most severe damage. I also find it amusing that Bosun Gile never asked or approached Moradas after seeing him soak his hands in a can full of thinner considering that, as the ponencia observed, that act is certainly ludicrous in itself. The ponencia turned a blind eye on these logical inconsistencies and simply held that Bosun Giles' claim conforms with that of Chief Officer Bejada. According to Chief Officer Bejada, he noticed that Moradas had patches of green paint on the arms and body of his overalls. He also stated that there was an open paint tin nearby that had the same green color as the marks. on Moradas' overalls; that he ordered an ordinary seaman to extinguish the fire and close the incinerator doors just before Moradas got burned; and that he personally "checked the incinerator and found that it contained cardboard cartons which were intact and unburnt [and that] [t]here was no sign of any explosion having occurred and the steel plates which made up the incinerator box were cool to the touch."[32] The ponencia also explained that the corroborating affidavits of the other crew members and officers cannot be dismissed as self-serving in the absence of any showing that they were lying when they made their statements. The problem with this explanation is that the other crew members who executed their own affidavits have no personal knowledge about the burning itself. With Bosun Gile's statement bearing logical inconsistency with Moradas' own injury, Chief Officer Bejada's statement would assume crucial importance in establishing the petitioners' case of a self-inflicted injury. Chief Officer Bejada's unnotarized written statement establishes the following facts: (i) that he saw Moradas while burning; and (ii) that there was no fire in the incinerator whose steel plates were cool to the touch. His bare statements, however, do not in any way prove that Moradas' injury was self inflicted. The ponencia merely deduced that Moradas either burned himself or wanted to sabotage the ship. Whichever of these "deductions, however, have been earlier shown to be logically inconsistent and contrary to human nature. We must not fail to consider that substantiality of evidence depends not only on its quantitative, but also on its qualitative, aspects.[33] (We have earlier discussed that the "corroborating affidavits" are immaterial insofar as Moradas' burning itself and that Bosun Giles' testimony is too incredible to be believed.) However, the substantiality of the petitioners' evidence - supposedly through the "circumstantial evidence," i.e., the smell of Moradas' overalls, the location of the thinner can and the lighter in relation to the place where Moradas was found burning," and the borrowing of Chief Officer Bejada's lighter- supporting Chief Officer Bejada's statements is itself negated by the clear evidence on record. As the CA correctly observed, "the green paint on [Moradas'] arms and body is consistent with [his] assertion that some chemicals splashed over all his body."[34] Even the location of the thinner hardly adds up to the substantiality required to support Chief Officer Bejada's statement since the incinerator room is not shown to be far elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/thebookshelf/showdocsfriendly/1/56605 23/31