Evidence Notes

Bar Lecture Series

Chapter 1. Preliminary Considerations

A. Basic Principles
Concept of Evidence (Section 1 of Rule 128)
“Section 1. Evidence defined – Evidence is the means, sanctioned by these
rules, of ascertaining in a judicial proceeding the truth respecting a matter of fact.”

*Not every fact having conceivable connection to the issue of a case, or that which
provides a reasonable inference as to the truth or falsity of a matter alleged, is
considered evidence.
*To be considered evidence, the same must be “sanctioned” or allowed by the Rules of
Court. It is not evidence if it is excluded by the Rules of Court even if it proves the
existence or non-existence of a fact in issue.
*The definition (Section 1 of Rule 128), significantly considers “evidence” not as an end
in itself but merely as a “means” of ascertaining the truth of a matter of fact, not in all
types of proceedings but in a judicial proceeding only.
*Accusation is not synonymous with guilt. There must be a sufficient evidence to
support a charge.
*The truth referred to in the definition is not necessarily the actual truth but one aptly
referred to as the judicial or legal truth. The findings of the court would depend on the
admissible evidence presented before it.
*Courts, as a rule, are not even authorized to consider evidence which has not been
formally offered.

Scope and Applicability of the rules on evidence

1. The rules on evidence in the Rules of Court are guided by the principle of uniformity.
2. The rules on evidence, being components of the ROC, apply only to judicial proceedings.
“Sec 4. In what cases not applicable. – These Rules shall not apply to election
cases, land registration, cadastral, naturalization, and insolvency proceedings,
and other cases not herein provided for, except by analogy or in a suppletory
character and whenever practicable and convenient.”
3. Technical rules of evidence, such as the hearsay rule, are not to be rigidly applied in the
course of preliminary investigation proceedings. Since preliminary investigation does
not finally adjudicate the rights and obligations of the parties, probable cause can be
established with hearsay evidence, as long as there is substantial basis for crediting the
hearsay.
4. The general rule is that administrative agencies are not bound by the technical rules on
evidence. A disciplinary case against a government officer, like a judge, is an
administrative proceeding. Hence, technical rules of evidence are not strictly applied
and administrative due process cannot be fully equated with due process in the strict
judicial sense.
5. The technical rules of evidence are not binding on labor tribunals.
 6. The Civil Service Commission, for example, conducts its investigation for the purpose of
ascertaining the truth without necessarily adhering to technical rules of procedure
applicable in judicial proceedings.
7. In Ong Chia v Republic, 328 SCRA 749, the court emphasized that the rule on formal
offer of evidence is not applicable to a case involving a petition for naturalization.
8. Sasan, Sr. v NLRC, 569 SCRA 670, further illustrates the rule on the non-applicability of
the Rules of Court, including the rules on evidence, to non-judicial proceedings.
9. In the Sasan case, the petitioners, likewise, interposed a protest against the
documentary evidence submitted by the adverse party because they were mere
photocopies. The Court, in dismissing the objection, stressed once again that, the
proceedings before the NLRC are not covered by the technical rules on evidence and
procedure as observed in regular courts.
10. The rule that the provisions of the Rules of Court do not apply to administrative or
quasi-judicial proceedings likewise found expression in much earlier case of Bantolino v
Coca Cola Bottlers, Inc., 403 SCRA 699. The Court unequivocally rules that in a labor
case, it is not necessary for an affiant to appear and testify, and be cross-examined by
counsel for the adverse party on his affidavit.
11. Similarly, it was declared that the parol evidence rule, like other rules on evidence,
should not be strictly applied in labor cases. Hence, a Labor Arbiter is not precluded
from accepting and evaluating evidence other than, and even contrary to, what is stated
in the CBA.

When evidence is required; when not required

1. The basic rule is that a mere allegation is not evidence and is not equivalent to proof.
Evidence is a means of proving a fact. The evidence is needed to be offered in court to
resolve a question of fact.
2. In certain instances, evidence is no longer required to prove an assertion, as in the
following:
a. When pleadings in a civil case do not tender an issue of fact, a trial need not be
conducted since there is no more reason to present evidence. The case is then
ripe for judicial determination, through a judgement on the pleadings, pursuant
to Rule 34 of the Rules of Court.
b. Presentation of evidence may, likewise, be dispensed with by agreement of
parties. The parties to any action are allowed by the Rules to agree in writing
upon the facts involved in the litigation and to submit the case for judgement
upon the facts agreed upon, without the introduction of evidence.
c. Evidence is not required on matters of judicial notice (Sec 1, Rule 129, ROC) and
on matters judicially admitted (Sec 4, Rule 129, ROC)
d. Evidence is not required when the law presumes the truth of a fact.
i. An injured passenger sues a common carrier for breach of contract of
carriage, evidence of the negligence of the defendant carrier is dispensed
with. This is because Art. 1756 of the NCC establishes the presumption
that, “In case of death of or injuries to passengers, common carriers are
presumed to have been at fault or to have acted negligently.” The same
 presumption applies under Art. 1735 of the same Code when the goods
on board a common carrier are lost, destroyed, or deteriorated.
ii. The constitutional presumption of innocence is a fitting example. The
accused has no duty to prove his innocence because the law presumes
that an accused in a criminal prosecution is innocent until the contrary is
proven
e. Evidence is, likewise, dispensed with when a rule presumes the truth of a fact.
Under Rule 131 of the Rules of the Court, two kinds of presumptions, conclusive
and disputable, have been established.
f. Evidence is not required when a fact is judicially admitted by the adverse party.
An admission made by party in the course of the proceedings in the same case,
does not require proof. (Sec 4, Rule 129, Rules of Court).

APPLICATION OF THE RULES ON ELECTRONIC EVIDENCE

1. The application of the rules on evidence in the Rules of Court contrasts with the
application of the Rules on Electronic Evidence. The definition of “evidence” in the Rules
of Court makes reference only to judicial proceedings. The provisions on the Rules of
Electronic Evidence apply as well to quasi-judicial and administrative cases. Section 2,
Rule 1 of the Rules on Electronic Evidence provides:
“SEC. 2. Cases covered – These rules shall apply to all civil actions and
proceedings, as well as quasi-judicial and administrative cases.”
2. It was previously held that the provisions on the Rules on Electronic Evidence do not
apply to criminal proceedings but on People v Enojas, G.R. No. 204894, March 10, 2014,
applied the Rules on Electronic Evidence to criminal cases.
3. Ephemeral communications are now admissible evidence, subject to certain conditions.
Ephemeral electronic communications refer to telephone conversations, text messages,
chatroom sessions, streaming audio, streaming videos, and other forms of
communication the evidence of which is not recorded or retained. (Bartolome v
Maranan A.M. No. P-11-2979, November 18, 2014)

SOME DISTINCTIONS BETWEEN EVIDENCE IN CIVIL CASES AND EVIDENCE IN CRIMINAL CASES
a. In civil cases, the party having the burden of proof must prove his claim by a
preponderance of evidence (Sec. 1, Rule 133, ROC). In criminal cases, the guilt of
the accused has to be proven beyond reasonable doubt. (Sec. 2, Rule 133, ROC)
b. In civil cases, an offer of compromise is not an admission of any liability, and is
not admissible in evidence against the offeror. In criminal cases, except those
involving quasi-offences (criminal negligence) or those allowed by law to be
compromised, an offer of compromise by the accused may be received in
evidence as an implied admission of guilt. (Sec. 27, Rule 130, ROC)
c. In civil cases, the concept of presumption of innocence does not apply and,
generally, there is no presumption for or against a party except in certain cases
provided for by law. In criminal cases, the accused enjoys a constitutional
presumption of innocence. (Sec 14, Art. III, Constitution of the Philippines)
 d. The concept of “confession” does not apply to civil cases which use the more
appropriate term, “admission.” A confession is a declaration of an accused
acknowledging his guilt of the offence charged.
e. In civil cases, evidence of the moral character (good or bad) of a party is
admissible as long as it is pertinent to the issue of character involved in the case.
In criminal case, the prosecution is not allowed to prove the bad moral character
of the accused even if it is pertinent to the moral trait involved. It can only do so
in rebuttal.
f. The rule on disqualification by reason of death or insanity under Section 23 of
Rule 130, applies only to civil cases or special proceedings, not to criminal cases.
This is because the rule involves a claim or demand against the estate of the
deceased or the person of unsound mind. (Sec. 23, Rule 130, Rules of Court).
g. The privileged communication rule on patient-physician relationship has
reference only to civil case, not to criminal case (Sec 24[c], Rule 130, Rules of
Court).
h. The rule on admission by a conspirator applies only to criminal case, not to a civil
case.
i. The rule on extrajudicial confession applies to the accused in a criminal case, not
to the defendant in a civil case (Sec. 3, Rule 133, Rules of Court).

DISTINCTION BETWEEN PROOF AND EVIDENCE

1. “Proof” is not the evidence itself. There is proof only because of evidence. It is merely
the probative effect of evidence and is the conviction or persuasion of the mind
resulting from a consideration of evidence.
2. Proof is the effect or result of evidence, while the evidence is the medium of proof.

FACTUM PROBANDUM AND FACTUM PROBANS

1. Evidence signifies a relationship between two facts, namely:
a. The fact or proposition to be established (factum probandum); and
b. The facts or material evidencing the fact or proposition to be established (factum
probans).
2. The factum probandum is the fact to be proved; it is the fact which is in issue in a case
and to which the evidence is directed. On the other hand, factum probans is the
probative or evidentiary fact tending to prove the fact in issue.
3. The factum probandum in a certain case may be affected by the judicial admissions of a
party. If the defendant in a suit based on a culpa aquiliana theory admits his negligence
in his answer to the complaint, there is no more need to prove negligence. Hence,
negligence ceases to be a factum probandum in the case. If the factum probandum
signifies the fact or proposition to be established, then matters of judicial notice,
conclusive presumptions and judicial admissions cannot qualify as parts of the factum
probandum of a particular case because such matters need not to be established or
proven.
4. In practical terms, the factum probandum in a civil case refers to the elements of a
cause of action alleged in the complaint to be proven by the plaintiff where such
 elements are denied specifically by the defendant. If the defendant makes no specific
denials of the material averments of a claim, such averments are deemed admitted and
therefore there is no factum probandum to speak of.

*The mere filing of the complaint does not ipso facto give rise to a factum probandum.
Where the defendant specifically denies a material allegation in the complaint, the
material matter denied becomes the factum probandum, the fact to be established.
*The same rule applies to criminal case. The mere filing of an information does not
automatically give rise to a factum probandum. It only arises when the accused enters a
plea of not guilty.

5. In a criminal case, when the accused pleads not guilty, the factum probandum refers to
matter that the prosecution must prove beyond reasonable doubt in order to justify a
conviction.

CORPUS DELICTI
1. When the accused enters a plea of not guilty, the State has to prove the corpus delicti of
the offense.
*Jurisprudence holds that corpus delicti is the body or substance of the crime.
2. The corpus delicti is a compound fact made up of two elements:
a. The existence of a certain act or result forming the basis of criminal charge.
b. The existence of a criminal agency as the cause of the act or result.
3. The body of the crime does not necessarily refer to the actual object or fruit of the crime.
It is the fact that a crime has been committed by a particular perpetrator.

LIBERAL CONSTRUCTION OF THE RULES ON EVIDENCE

1. Like all other provisions under the Rules of Court, the rules on evidence must be liberally
construed. The primary objective is to enhance substantial justice.
2. The Rules on Electronic Evidence shall likewise be construed liberally.

ABSENCE OF A VESTED RIGHT IN THE RULES OF EVIDENCE

*There is no vested right in the rules of evidence because said rules are subject to change by
the Supreme Court pursuant to its powers to promulgate rules concerning pleading, practice,
and procedure.

WAIVER OF THE RULES ON EVIDENCE

1. The rules on evidence may be waived. When an otherwise objectionable evidence is not
objected to, the evidence becomes admissible because of the waiver.
2. As long as no law or principles of morality, good customs, and public policy are
transgressed or no rights of third persons are violated, the rules on evidence may be
waived by the parties.
ADMISSIBILITY OF EVIDENCE
Requisites for the admissibility of evidence.
1. Sec. 3 of Rule 128 provides:
“SEC. 3. Admissibility of evidence. – evidence is admissible when it is relevant to the
issue and is not excluded by the law or these rules.”

For evidence to be admissible, two elements must concur, namely:

a. The evidence is relevant; and
b. The evidence is not excluded by the rules (competent).

Wigmore’s two axioms of admissibility:

*That none but facts having rational probative value are admissible unless some
specific rule forbids them. – the first axiom is, in substance, the axiom of relevance and
the second axiom is the axiom of competence.

2. No evidence is admissible unless it is relevant. However, relevancy alone does not make
the evidence admissible. An item of evidence may be relevant but not admissible. It is
not admissible because, although relevant, it may be incompetent, i.e. it is excluded by
law or by a particular rule or both.

Neither is evidence admissible merely because it is competent. Although evidence is

competent, it may still be inadmissible if it is not relevant.

THE FORMULA FOR ADMISSIBILITY OF EVIDENCE IS THAT IT MUST BE BOTH RELEVANT

AND COMPETENT.

RELEVANT EVIDENCE
*The concept of relevance is clearly one of logic. It deals with the rational relationship between
the evidence and the fact to be proved.
*Where there is no issue as to a matter of fact, there exists no purpose for an item of evidence.
*It is the relation to the fact in issue which makes the evidence either relevant or irrelevant.
*Although competency of the evidence is a necessary component of admissible evidence, the
question that most often arises in court is the relevance of the evidence. When an advocate
offers an evidence for the court’s consideration, he offers evidence to prove a fact. This fact
may either be the immediate fact in issue or the ultimate fact in issue.

TEST FOR DETERMINING THE RELEVANCY OF EVIDENCE

1. The determination of relevance is, thus, a matter of inference and not of law. The test is,
therefore, one of logic, common sense, and experience.
2. The existence of the relationship between the fact in issue and the offered evidence is
one that is perceived only by the mind without reference to a statute or rule. It is,
therefore, a matter of reasoning. It is a matter of reasoning because relevance is a
matter of logic. The matter of relevance is one that is addressed to the discretion of the
court.
COLLATERAL MATTERS
1. A matter is collateral when it is on a ”parallel or diverging line,” merely “additional” or
“auxiliary”. This term connotes an absence of direct connection between evidence and
that matter in dispute.
2. For instance, a motive of a person and, in some instances, his reputation are matters
that may be considered collateral to the subject of a controversy. A very strong motive
to kill the victim does not ipso facto make motive relevant to the issue of guilt or
innocence because the person with absolutely no motive to kill could be the culprit.
3. Jurisprudence considers motive as generally immaterial, not being an element in the
offense. However, motive becomes important when the evidence on the commission of
the crime and the identity of the perpetrator are purely circumstantial.

WHEN COLLATERAL MATTERS ARE ALLOWED

1. As a rule, evidence on collateral matter is not allowed, however, this is not an absolute
rule. Under the Rules of Court, a collateral matter may be admitted if it tends in any
reasonable degree to establish the probability or improbability of the fact in issue.

RELEVANCE OF EVIDENCE ON THE CREDIBILITY OF THE WITNESS; DETERMINATION OF

CREDIBILITY
1. Evidence on the credibility of a witness, or the lack of it, is always relevant. The
credibility of the witness is always an issue because it has the inherent tendency to
prove or disprove the truthfulness of his assertion and, consequently, the probative
value of the proffered evidence.
2. In the assessment of the testimonies of witnesses, the Court is guided by the rule that
for evidence to be believed, it must not only proceed from the mouth of a credible
witness, but must also be credible in itself such as the common experience of mankind
can approve as probable under the circumstances. There is no test of the truth of
human testimony except its conformity to our knowledge, observation, and experience.
Whatever is repugnant to these belongs to the miraculous, and is outside of judicial
cognizance.
3. The importance of the credibility of a witness in a judicial proceeding is highlighted by
rules which allow the adverse party to test such credibility through a process called
“cross-examination.” Under Sec. 6, Rule 132, a witness may be cross-examined by the
adverse party not only on matters taken up in the direct examination.
4. Questions outside the subject matter of the direct examination are not allowed:
a. An accused may testify as a witness on his own behalf “but subject to cross-
examination on matters covered by direct examination.”
b. A hostile witness may be impeached and cross-examined by the adverse party,
but such cross-examination “must only be on the subject matter of his
examination-in-chief”
5. Existing jurisprudence has consistently held that the determination of the credibility of a
witness is best left to the trial court, which had the opportunity to observe the
 deportment of the witness while testifying. The observations and conclusions of the trial
court deserve great respect and are accorded finality.

COMPETENT EVIDENCE
1. Competent evidence is one that is not excluded by law or rules in a particular case. The
admissibility of the evidence depends on its relevance and competence.
2. If the test of relevance is logic and common sense, the test of competence is the law or
rules. If the law or a particular rule excludes the evidence, it is incompetent.
COMPETENCE IS PRIMARILY A MATTER OF LAW OR RULE.
3. Competence, in relation to evidence in general, refers to the eligibility of an evidence to
be received as such. However, when applied to a witness, the term competent refers to
the qualifications of the witness. In other words, competence refers to his eligibility to
take the stand and testify. Thus, a trial objection employing the ground incompetent is
usually used in relation to the ineligibility of a witness to testify because of the presence
of a disability that renders him unfit to sit on the stand.
If evidence offered is objected to on the ground that it is incompetent,
such objection is not an accepted form of objection because it is a general
objection. The objection should specify the ground for its incompetence such as
leading, hearsay, or parol. Although evidence is incompetent because it is
excluded by law or the rules, evidence is not objected to on the ground that it is
incompetent.
Thus, for purposes of trial objections, evidence is never incompetent. It is
people who are. It is a sloppy usage to object to a testimony or document as
incompetent.

COMPTENCE OF ELECTRONIC EVIDENCE

Electronic evidence is competent evidence and is admissible if it complies with the rules
on admissibility prescribed by the Rules of Court and related laws, and is authenticated in the
manner prescribed by the Rules on Electronic Evidence.

ADMISSIBILITY AND WEIGHT (probative value) OF THE EVIDENCE.

1. Admissibility of evidence refers to the question of whether or not the evidence is to be
considered at all. On the other hand, the probative value of the evidence refers to the
question of whether or not it proves an issue.
Thus, a particular item of evidence may be admissible but its evidentiary weight
depends on judicial evaluation within the guidelines provided by rules on evidence.
Admissibility is one thing, weight is another. To admit evidence and not have to believe
it are not incompatible with each other.
2. The admissibility of evidence should be equated with the weight of the evidence. The
admissibility of evidence depends on its relevance and competence while the weight of
evidence pertains to its tendency to convince and persuade.

MULTIPLE ADMISSIBILITY
 1. There are times when a profferred evidence is admissible for two or more purposes.
Thus, depending upon the circumstances, the declaration of a dying person may be
admissible for several purposes. It may be offered as a dying declaration, part of the res
gestae, or declaration against interest. The statement by a bus driver immediately after
the collision, that he dozed off in the wheel while driving, may be admissible as an
admission under Sec. 26, Rule 130 or as part of the res gestae pursuant to Sec. 42 of
Rule 130.
2. Sometimes, evidence is inadmissible for one purpose but admissible for another or vice
versa. For instance, evidence of a person’s bad general reputation for truth, honesty, or
integrity is objectionable if offered to prove that he committed the crime charged but it
may be admissible to impeach the credibility of a witness under the authority of Sec. 11
of Rule 132.
3. Evidence may also be admissible against one party but not against another. An
extrajudicial statement of a robbery suspect is not admissible against his co-accused
under the res inter alios acta rule but may be admissible against the declarant himself as
an admission pursuant to Sec. 26 of Rule 130.

CONDITIONAL ADMISSIBILITY
It happens frequently enough that the relevance of a piece of evidence is not apparent
at the time it is offered, but the relevance of which will readily be seen when connected to
other pieces of evidence not yet offered. The proponent may ask the court to conditionally
admit the evidence subject to the condition that he is going to establish its relevancy and
competency at a later time. If the connection is not shown as promised, the court may upon
motion of the adverse party, strike out from the record.

CURATIVE ADMISSIBILITY
1. The doctrine of curative admissibility allows a party to introduce otherwise inadmissible
evidence to answer the opposing party’s previous introduction of inadmissible evidence.
A party who first introduces either irrelevant or incompetent evidence cannot complain
of the subsequent admission of similar evidence from the adverse party relating to the
same subject matter. Conversely, the doctrine should not be invoked where evidence
was properly admitted.

DIRECT AND CIRCUMSTANCIAL EVIDENCE

1. Direct evidence proves a fact without drawing any inference from another fact. Thus, a
testimony of a prosecution witness claiming that he personally saw the accused when
the latter drew and fired his pistol at the victim, without the latter’s provocation, is a
direct testimonial evidence.
Circumstantial or indirect evidence is the exact opposite of direct evidence.
When the evidence is circumstantial, a fact is established by making an inference
from a previously establish fact. In other words, in this type of evidence, the
court uses a fact from which an assumption is drawn. When the court does not
have to make an inference from one fact to arrive at a conclusion, the evidence
is direct.
 2. Circumstantial evidence or indirect evidence is that evidence which indirectly proves a
fact in issue through an inference which the fact-finder draws from the evidence
established.
3. Circumstantial evidence, also known as indirect evidence, refers to proof of collateral
facts and circumstances wherein the existence of the main fact may be inferred
according to reason and common experience.
CONVICTION BY CIRCUMSTANTIAL EVIDENCE
1. There is no requirement in our jurisdiction that only direct evidence may convict. The
probative value of direct evidence is generally neither greater than nor superior to
circumstantial evidence. Direct evidence of the commission of a crime is not the only
matrix wherefrom a trial court may draw its conclusion on a finding of guilt. As restated
in a more recent case: “Direct evidence of the commission of a crime is not the only
basis from which the court may draw its finding of guilt. Resort to circumstantial
evidence is sanctioned by Rule 133, Section 4, of the Rules of Court.
2. The commission of a crime, the identity of the perpetrator, and the finding of guilt may
all be established by circumstantial evidence. Direct proof, for instance, is not necessary
to prove conspiracy. It may be deduced from the acts of the accused before, during, and
after the commission of the crime.
3. Circumstantial evidence becomes significant when there is no direct evidence of an act
or an omission as when no one witnessed the commission of a crime. In a criminal case,
circumstantial evidence may be sufficient for conviction provided the following
requisites concur:
a. There is more than one circumstance;
b. The facts from which the inferences are derived are proven; and
c. The combination of all the circumstances is such as to produce a conviction
beyond reasonable doubt.
A judgement of conviction based on circumstantial evidence can be sustained when the
circumstances proved form an unbroken chain that results in a fair and reasonable
conclusion pointing to the accused, to the exclusion of all others, as the perpetrator. All
the circumstances proved must be consistent with one another, and they are to be
taken together as proved.

The Court clarified that the determination of whether circumstantial evidence is

sufficient to support a finding of guilt is a qualitative test not a quantitative one. The
proven circumstances must be consistent with each other.

CUMULATIVE EVIDENCE AND CORROBORATIVE EVIDENCE

1. Cumulative evidence refers to evidence of the same kind and character as that already
given which tends to prove the same proposition.
2. Corroborative evidence is one that is supplementary to that already given tending to
strengthen or confirm it. It is additional evidence of a different character to the same
point. Corroborating evidence is also cumulative even if it is of the same kind and
character.
 3. Corroborative testimony is not always required.
4. The Supreme Court declared that it has long been held that the testimony of a sole
eyewitness is sufficient to support a conviction so long as it is clear, straightforward and
worthy of credence. Corroborative evidence is necessary only when there are reasons to
suspect that the witness falsified the truth or that his observations are inaccurate.
5. Under the Rule on Examination of a Child Witness, corroboration shall not be required
of a testimony of a child. His testimony, if credible by itself, shall be sufficient to support
a finding of a fact, conclusion or judgement subject to the standard of proof required in
criminal and non-criminal cases.
6. In rape cases, the credibility of the victim is almost always the single most important
issue. If the testimony of the victim passes the test of credibility, which means it is
credible, natural, convincing, and consistent with human nature and the normal cause
of things, the accused may be convicted solely on that basis.

POSITIVE AND NEGATIVE EVIDENCE

1. Evidence is said to be positive when a witness affirms in the stand that a certain fact
does exist or that a certain event happened. It is negative when the witness states that
an event did not occur or that the state of facts alleged to exist does not actually exist.
2. Positive and negative evidence may, likewise, refer to the presence or absence of
something.
3. The defense of denial is viewed with disfavor for being inherently weak. It cannot prevail
over positive and credible testimony of prosecution witnesses. Greater weight is given
to the positive identification of the accused by the prosecution witness than the
accused’s denial.
4. Denial, as a defense, can only prosper when substantiated by clear and convincing
evidence.

COMPETENCY OF A WITNESS DISTINGUISHED FROM HIS CREDIBILITY

1. The competency of a witness differs from his credibility. A witness may be competent
and yet give incredible testimony; he may be incompetent, and yet his evidence, if
received, is perfectly credible. The term “credibility” refers to worthiness of belief, that
quality which renders a witness worthy of belief.
2. The meaning of credibility in law is exactly what it means in ordinary usage:
“believability.”

ADMISSIBLE EVIDENCE AND CREDIBLE EVIDENCE: Admissibility of evidence and probative

value
1. Evidence is admissible when it is relevant to the issue and is not excluded by law or
rules.
2. Admissible evidence is not necessarily credible evidence. They are entirely two different
matters and involve different concepts.
a. Admissible – means that the evidence is of such a character that the court,
pursuant to the rules of evidence, is bound to receive it or to allow it to be
introduced at the trial. Admissibility, however, does not guarantee credibility.
 3. Admissibility refers to the question of whether certain pieces of evidence are to be
considered at all, while probative value refers to the question of whether the admitted
evidence proves an issue.

MISCELLANEOUS DOCTRINES
1. Falsus in uno, falsus in omnibus - false in one thing, false in everything. It is particularly
applied to the testimony of a witness who may be considered unworthy of belief as to
all the rest of his evidence if he is shown to have testified falsely in one detail.
- The maxim is not an absolute rule of law and is, in fact, rarely applied in
modern jurisprudence. It deals only with the weight of evidence and is
not a positive rule of law. The rule is not an inflexible one of universal
application. Modern trend of jurisprudence favors more flexibility when
the testimony of a witness may be partly believed and partly
disbelieved depending on the corroborative evidence presented at the
trial.
2. Alibi – the defense of alibi is inherently weak and must be rejected when the identity of
the accused is satisfactorily and categorically established by the eyewitnesses to the
offense, especially when such eyewitnesses have no ill-motive to testify falsely. Positive
identification prevails over alibi since the latter can be easily fabricated and is inherently
unreliable
a. Alibi is not always false and without merit. Sometimes, the fact that the accused
was somewhere else may just be the plain and unvarnished truth. But to be
exonerating, the defense of alibi must be so airtight that it would not admit of no
exception.
b. While the defense of alibi is by nature a weak one, it assumes significance and
strength where the evidence for the prosecution is also intrinsically weak. The
rule that alibi is a weak defense has never been intended to change the burden
of proof in criminal cases.
c. For the defense of alibi to prosper, the requirements of time and place must be
strictly met. It is not enough to prove that the accused was somewhere else
when the crime was committed, but he must also demonstrate by clear and
convincing evidence that it was physically impossible for him to have been at the
scene of the crime at the time the same was committed.
3. FRAME-UP
a. The defense of frame-up is not looked upon with favor due to its being
conveniently concocted.
4. DELAY AND INITIAL RELUCTANCE IN REPORTING A CRIME
a. It is settled that the delay in the filing of a complaint before the proper
authorities would not impair the credibility of the complainant if such delay is
satisfactorily explained.
5. FLIGHT OR NON-FLIGHT
a. Flight per se is not synonymous with guilt. However, when flight is unexplained,
it is a circumstance from which an inference of guilt may be drawn.
6. RECANTATION
a. A recantation does not necessarily cancel an earlier declaration. The rule is
settled that in cases where the previous testimony is retracted and a subsequent
different, if not contrary, testimony is made by the same witness, the test to
decide which testimony to believe is one of comparison coupled with the
application of the general rules of evidence.