Revisiting the Jurisprudence on Eyewitness’ testimony

From time in memorial up to present time, eyewitnesses’ testimonies hold a lot of

weight in every controversies or issues being tried in court. For example, in a trial for
criminal case, the eyewitnesses’ testimonies can significantly affect the result of the
trial, it may determine whether or not the accused is guilty beyond reasonable doubt.
But truly, it is not the compelling evidence to determine such, point may often be
overlooked.

A lot of factors must be carefully considered and examined before the judge
arrives at his decision. Those decisions may result in the severe consequences of
deprivation of life and liberty. We often see in most trial for criminal cases, eyewitnesses
identify the suspect, accordingly, this identification does not mean that the suspect was
the real perpetrator in the crime charged against him or her. While these identifications
may be true, we can not rule out the fact that these identifications may also be wrong.

In the case of Proplr v. Olivia, G.R. No. 122110, September 26, 2006 which
has been decided by the Supreme Court states:

“The uncorroborated testimony of a single eyewitness, if credible,

may be enough to prove the corpus delicti and to warrant conviction.”

As also stated in another case People of the Philippines v. Faustino, 394 Phil.
236, 259 (2000) decided by the Supreme Court:

“The identification of an accused by an eyewitness is a vital piece of

evidence and most decisive of the success or failure of the case for the
prosecution.”

Each case also had a certain amount of corroborating evidence. If eyewitnesses

who were more certain of their choice would be more likely to identify the suspects of the
crime who also had abundant corroborating evidence, and eyewitnesses who are not
certain themselves should be less accurate to pin-point the suspect. In addition, when the
police had ample corroborating evidence against the suspect, the credibility of the
testimony of the eyewitness becomes most decisive of the likelihood that the suspect is
the real perpetrator.

However, mistaken identifications lead to wrongful conviction. Indeed, it is perilous

to base a conviction on an eyewitness’ identification of a suspect alone. The memory of a
person is not accurate to compare with a video recorder. The memory of a person is
fragile, considering the stress that accumulates, the memory of the eyewitness may not
accurately remember the facts and circumstances surrounding the commission of the
crime.

In People of the Philippines v. De Guzman, G.R. No. 192250, July 11, 2012,
the Supreme Court ruled that:

“The time-honored test in determining the value of the testimony of a

witness is its compatibility with human knowledge, observation and common
experience of man. Thus, whatever is repugnant to the standards of human
knowledge, observation and experience becomes incredible and must lie
outside judicial cognizance. Consistently, the Court has ruled that evidence
to be believed must proceed not only from the mouth of a credible witness
but must be credible in itself as to hurdle the test of conformity with the
knowledge and common experience of mankind. In the case at bench, the
testimony of Flores, the lone eyewitness of the prosecution does not bear the
earmarks of truth and, hence not credible.” Hence, it is indispensable
requirement that eyewitness testimony, in order to warrant a judgment of
guilt beyond reasonable doubt, must pass the test of credibility.”

An eyewitness may be competent, and yet give an incredible testimony or he may

be incompetent, and yet his evidence, if received, is perfectly credible.

Competency refers to his qualifications. After the competence of an eyewitness is

allowed, the consideration of his credibility follows. While, credibility refers to his capacity
of being believed, it refers to his worthiness of belief or that quality which renders a
witness worth of belief. In ordinary usage, it means the eyewitness’ believability. An
eyewitness may be competent but he is not credible.
 The competency of the witness refers to a witness who can perceive, and
perceiving, can make known his perception to others. In contrast to credibility of the
eyewitness which refers to a witness whose testimony is believable.

In the recent case of People of the Philippines v. Nunez, G.R. No. 209342,
October 4, 2017, the Supreme Court held that:

“Criminal Prosecution may result in the severe consequences of deprivation

of liberty, property, and, where capital punishment is imposed, life.
Prosecution that relies solely on eyewitness identification must be approached
meticulously, cognizant of the inherent frailty of human memory. Eyewitnesses
who have previously made admissions that they could not identify the
perpetrators of a crime but, years later and after a highly suggestive process
of presenting suspects, contradict themselves and claim that they can identify
the perpetrator with certainty are grossly wanting in credibility. Prosecution
that relies solely on these eyewitnesses’ testimonies fails to discharge its
burden of proving an accused’s guilt beyond reasonable doubt.”