Due Process

(…continuation)
Determination of Intent
Review

“SECTION 1. No person
shall be deprived of life,
liberty, or property without
due process of law…”
Kinds of Due Process

Substantial

Procedural

a. Judicial

b. Administrative

- Disciplinary Proceedings Against Students

 Levels of Proof

Proof Beyond Reasonable Doubt

Preponderance of Evidence
Substantial Evidence

- “Evidence that a reasonable mind could accept

as adequate to support a conclusion.”
 Disciplinary Proceedings Against Students

the students must be informed in writing of the nature and

cause of any accusation against them;
that they shall have the right to answer the charges against
them with the assistance of counsel, if desired:
they shall be informed of the evidence against them
they shall have the right to adduce evidence in their own
behalf; and
the evidence must be duly considered by the investigating
committee or official designated by the school authorities to
hear and decide the case.
 May be summary
Disciplinary
Proceedings need not necessarily include the right to
cross examination.
Against
Students “The very nature of due process negates any
concept of inflexible procedures universally
applicable to every imaginable situation.”
Determination of Intent
Cudia’s Report of Lying:

1st Explanation of Cudia:

"I came directly from OR432 Class. We were dismissed a bit late by our instructor
Sir."

Request for Reconsideration of Meted Punishment :

I strongly believe that I am not in control of the circumstances, our 4th period class
ended 1500H and our 5th period class, which is ENG412, started 1500H also.
Immediately after 4t period class, I went to my next class without any intention of
being late Sir.
 Quibbling

A person can easily create a false impression in

the mind of his listener by cleverly wording what
he says, omitting relevant facts, or telling a
partial truth. When he knowingly does so with the
intent to deceive or mislead, he is quibbling.
Because it is an intentional deception, quibbling
is a form of lying.- Birdwell v. Schlesinger
 Determination of Intent
 Intent, being a state of mind, is rarely susceptible of direct proof
 must ordinarily be inferred from the facts, and therefore, can
only be proved by unguarded expressions, conduct and
circumstances
 Cadet 1 CL Cudia's intent to deceive is manifested from the very
act of capitalizing on the use of the words "dismiss" and "class."
 The truth of the matter is that the ordinary usage of these two
terms, in the context of an educational institution, does not
correspond to what Cadet 1 CL Cudia is trying to make it appear.
Determination of Intent
 Inthat sense, the words are not generic and have definite and precise
meaning.
 By no stretch of the imagination can Cadets 1 CL Cudia, Miranda,
Arcangel, and Narciso already constitute a "class.“
 TheCourt cannot agree that such term includes "every transaction and
communication a teacher does with her students.“
 Clearly,it does not take too much intelligence to conclude that Cadet 1
CL Cudia should have been accurate by pinpointing who were with him
when he was late in the next class.
 Hisdeceptive explanation is made more obvious when compared with
what Cadets 1 CL Archangel and Narciso wrote in their DR explanation,
which was: "We approached our instructor after our class."
Determination of Intent
“.. I am not in control of the circumstances.”

According to the SC, this was not so:

*
This was not done by Cadet 1 CL Cudia. Thus, it cannot
be said that he already lost control over the
circumstances.
Determination of Intent

 It is apparent, therefore, that Cadet 1 CL Cudia

cunningly chose words which led to confusion in the
minds of respondents and eventually commenced the
HC inquiry.
 His case is not just a matter of semantics and a product
of plain and simple inaccuracy.
 There is manipulation of facts and presentation of
untruthful explanation constitutive of Honor Code
violation.
 Assignment:

In an honor case, can a cadet reported for an

honor violation demand that he/she read the
testimony of a witness against him as well as
question that witness in the Honor Com trial?
Explain/give basis for your yes or no answer.