1.

The admissibility of evidence depends on its relevance and competence, while

the weight of evidence pertains to evidence already admitted and its tendency to
convince and persuade. Thus, a particular item of evidence may be admissible,
but its evidentiary weight depends on judicial evaluation within the guidelines
provided by the Rules of Court.”

2. “Where an accused's alibi is established only by himself and his relatives, his
denial of culpability does not deserve any consideration, especially in the face of
affirmative testimonies of credible prosecution witnesses. This bare consideration
applies to supporting testimonies made by the friends of the accused. 
Where the distance did not render it impossible for the accused to be at the
scene of the crime, the defense of alibi must preclude the possibility that the
accused could have been physically present at that place or its vicinity at or about
the time of its commission. Appellant has utterly failed to prove that fact or
impossibility

3. the alleged inconsistencies of prosecution witnesses were more apparent

than real. The assault upon the person of Lelis did not occur in one place. In fact,
the whole incident was ambulatory, occurring as it did in various places. Thus,
while it is true that Atun testified that the place of the incident was dark, referring
to the place where the bolos were sold, yet Nipolo said the place was well-lighted,
as he was referring to the place in the supermarket where the victim ran and was
pursued by his assailants. 
As to the alleged inconsistencies in the testimonies of the prosecution witnesses,
suffice it to say that the same relate to minor matters. Rather than affect the
credibility of witnesses, they are badges of their truthfulness and candor. 

4. there are certain facts of substance and value that militate against an
affirmation of the finding of guilt in this case, particularly when the evidentiary rule is
recalled that in crimes against chastity, the testimony of the injured woman should not
be received with precipitate incredulity; and when the conviction depends at any vital
point upon her uncorroborated testimony, it should not be accepted unless her sincerity
and candor are free from suspicion. For rape is an accusation, easy to be made, hard to
be proved, but harder to be defended by the party accused, though innocent."

The foregoing flaws in the complainant's testimony on vital points

crucially destroy her credibility. The improbabilities therein verily defy the "Test of
reason." Her story lacks the stamp of absolute truth and candor.

5. (I)t is thus required that every circumstance favoring his innocence be duly taken
into account. The proof against him must survive the test of reason; the strongest
suspicion must not be permitted to sway judgment. The conscience must be satisfied
that on the defendant could be laid the responsibility for the offense charged; that not
only did he perpetrate the act but that it amounted to a crime. What is required then is
moral certainty."

Added to this is the fundamental principle that conviction should rest on

the strength of the prosecution evidence and not on the weakness of that of the defense.
The foregoing indispensable criteria have not been met herein. The prosecution.
evidence is wanting in proof beyond reasonable doubt.

6. The court erred in admitting the testimony regarding the character and reputation of
the defendant notwithstanding the fact that his character had not been put in issue by
the defense.

It is elementary rule in criminal procedure that the prosecution is not permitted

to touch upon the character of the accused in the original case and that it is only after the
defendant has elected to put his character in issue by calling witnesses and adducing
evidence in support that the prosecution is permitted to follow and disprove the evidence
so offered

7.to establish an alibi, a defendant must not only show that he was present at
some other place about the time of the alleged crime, but also that he was at such other
place for so long a time that it was impossible for him to have been at the place where the
crime was committed, either before or after the time he was at such other place. Needless
to state, alibi must be proved by positive, clear and satisfactory evidence

8. a conspiracy existed and the crimes were committed simultaneously one after
the other and were perpetrated by the same group of armed men so that the
identification made by Carlito Lara and Daniela Tindugan that the appellant was one of
the robbers is sufficient. While evidence of another crime is, as a rule, not admissible in a
prosecution for robbery, it is admissible when it is otherwise relevant, as where it tends
to identify the defendant as the perpetrator of the robbery charged, or tends to show his
presence at the scene or in the vicinity of the crime at the time charged, or when it is
evidence of a circumstance connected with the crime

9. The best evidence rule applies only when the contents of the document are the
subject of inquiry. Where the issue is only as to whether or not such document was
actually executed or exists, or in the circumstances relevant to or surrounding its
execution, the best evidence rule does not apply and testimonial evidence is admissible.

10. the primary evidence of a marriage must be an authentic copy of the marriage
contract”. While a marriage may also be proved by other competent evidence, the
absence of the contract must first be satisfactorily explained. Surely, the certification of
the person who allegedly solemnized a marriage is not admissible evidence of such
marriage unless proof of loss of the contract or of any other satisfactory reason for its
non-production is first presented to the court.

11.Extrajudicial confessions of the accused in a criminal case are universally

recognized as admissible evidence against him and this rule is based on the presumption
that no one would declare anything against himself unless such declarations were true.
Accordingly, it has been held that a confession constitutes an evidence of a high order
since it is supported by the strong presumption that no person of normal mind would
deliberately and knowingly confess to a crime unless prompted by truth and his
conscience. The trial court is not bound to believe all that the witness has said, but it may
give weight and credence to such portions of her testimony as it may deem worthy of
belief and disbelieve the other portions of her testimony. Triers of facts are not bound to
believe all that a witness has said; they may accept some portions of his testimony and
reject other portions, according to what seems to them, upon other facts and
circumstances, to be the truth.

12. The right of a party to cross-examine the witnesses of his adversary is invaluable as it
is inviolable in civil cases, no less than the right of the accused in criminal cases. The
express recognition of such right of the accused in the Constitution does not render the
right of parties in civil cases less constitutionally based, for it is an indispensable part of
the due process guaranteed by the fundamental law. Subject to appropriate supervision
by the judge in order to avoid unnecessary delays on account of its being unduly
protracted and to needed injunctions protective of the right of the witness against self-
incrimination and oppressive and unwarranted harassment and embarrassment, a party
is absolutely entitled to a full cross-examination as prescribed in Section 8 of Rule 132
thus: "Upon the termination of the direct examination, the witness may be cross-
examined by the adverse party as to any matters stated in the direct examination, or
connected therewith, with sufficient fullness and freedom to test his accuracy and
truthfulness and freedom from interest or bias, or the reverse, and to elicit all important
facts bearing upon the issue." Until such cross-examination has been finished, the
testimony of the witness cannot be considered as complete and may not, therefore, be
allowed to form part of the evidence to be considered by the court in deciding the case.

Oral testimony may be taken into account only when it is complete, that
is, if the witness has been wholly cross-examined by the adverse party or the right to
cross-examine is lost wholly or in part thru the fault of such adverse party. But when
cross-examination is not and cannot be done or completed due to causes attributable to
the party offering the witness, the uncompleted testimony is thereby rendered
incompetent.

13.Denials and alibis are fabricated with ease and rebutted only
with difficulty. Simple denials, like alibis, are inherently weak defenses
and cannot prevail over the positive testimony of credible witnesses
that the accused had committed the crime charged.