SIGNIFICANT DOCTRINES IN RULES ON EVIDENCE
APPLICABILITY OF THE RULES
It has been held that a reliance onthe technical rules of evidence in laborcases is misplaced. Hence, the applicationof the concept of judicial admissions insuch cases would be to exact compliancewith technicalities of law that is contraryto the demands of substantial justice.
(Mayon Hotel & Restaurant vs. Adana,G.R. No. 157634, 5/16/ 2005)
ADMISSIBILITY AND PROBATIVEVALUE
The admissibility of evidence shouldnot be confused with its probative value.Admissibility refers to the question of whether certain pieces of evidence are tobe considered at all, while probative valuerefers to the question of whether theadmitted evidence proves an issue. Thus,a particular item of evidence may beadmissible, but its evidentiary weightdepends on judicial evaluation within theguidelines provided by the rules of evidence.
(Heirs of Lourdes Saez Sabanpan vs. Cormoposa, G.R. No.152807, 812/ 2003)
ADMISSIBILITY OF EVIDENCE vs.WEIGHT OF EVIDENCE
Admissibility of evidencedepends on its relevance and competence,while the weight of evidence pertains toevidence already admitted and itstendency to convince and persuade.
(DBPPool of Accredited Insurance Companiesvs. Radio Mindanao Network, Inc., 480SCRA 314, January 27, 2006)
BASIC TENETS OF CREDIBILITY
Findings of credibility of the trialcourt will generally be respected onappeal; even findings of facts of the Courtof Appeals, when supported by substantialevidence, are conclusive and binding uponthe parties and not reviewable by theSupreme Court.
(Millares vs. PLDT, G.R.No. 154078, 5/6/2005)
Factual findings of trial courts whichhave been affirmed
by the Court of Appeals are entitled to great weight andrespect and will not be disturbed absentany showing that the trial courtoverlooked certain facts andcircumstances which could substantiallyaffect the outcome of the case.
(Yulo vs.People, 452 SCRA 705, 3/4/2005; Mendozavs. People, 448 SCRA 158, 1/14/ 2005)
Questions concerning the credibilityof a witness are best addressed to thesound discretion of the trial court as it is inthe best position to observe theirdemeanor and bodily movements.
(Llantovs. Alzona, 450 SCRA 288, 1/31/ 2005)
The failure of a witness to recalleach and every detail of an occurrencemay even serve to strengthen rather thanweaken his credibility because it erasesany suspicion of a coached or rehearsedtestimony.
The assessment of thecredibility of witnesses and theirtestimonies is best undertaken by the trialcourt.
The testimony of a single witness if straightforward and categorical issufficient to convict. Corroborativeevidence is deemed necessary only whenthere are reasons to warrant the suspicionthat the witness falsified the truth or thathis observations had been inaccurate.
(Rivera vs. People, G.R. No. 138553,6/30/2005)
Falsus in uno, falsus in omnibus
The principle of
falsus in uno, falsusin omnibus
is not strictly applied in this jurisdiction. It deals only with the weight of the evidence and is not a positive rule of law. The rule is not an inflexible one of universal application. Modern trend in jurisprudence favors more flexibility whenthe testimony of a witness may be partlybelieved and partly disbelieved dependingon the corroborative evidence presentedat the trial.
(People vs. Negosa, G.R. No.142856-57, 8/25/ 2003)
Variations in the declarations of witnesses in respect of collateral orincidental matters do not impair theweight of their testimonies, taken in theirentirety, to the prominent facts, nor per sepreclude the establishment of the crimeand the positive identification of themalefactor.
(People vs. Acosta, G.R. No.140386, 11/29/2001)
In a criminal case, circumstantialevidence may be sufficient for convictionprovided the following requisites concur:(1)
There is more than one circumstance;(2)
The facts from which the inferencesare derived are proven, and
Thecombination of all the circumstances issuch as to produce a conviction beyond