-

Positive and negative evidence

Evidence to be believed must be credible in itself as to hurdle the
Positive: when a witness affirms in the stand that a certain state of test of conformity with the knowledge and common experience of mankind.
facts does exist or that a certain event happened.
-Findings and conclusions of the trial court on the credibility of
Negative: when a witness states that an event did not occur or that
witnesses are entitled to great respect because the trial courts
the state of facts alleged to exist does not actually exist.
have the advantage of observing the demeanor of witnesses as
May also refer to the presence or absence of something
they testify. The determination by the trial court of the credibility
The defense of denial is viewed with disfavor for being inherently
of witnesses, when affirmed b the appellate court, is accorded full
weak because it is easily fabricated and concocted. It cannot prevail over the
weight and credit as well as great respect, if not conclusive effect,
positive and credible testimony of prosecution witnesses. To be worthy of
except when facts or circumstances of weight and influence were
consideration at all, denials shall be substantiated by clear and convincing
overlooked or the significance was misappreciated or
evidence. However, there are situation where an accused may really have
misinterpreted by the lower courts.
no other defenses but denial, which, if established to be the truth, may tilt
-The task of assigning values to the testimonies of witnesses and
the scales of justice in his favor, especially when the prosecution evidence
weighing their credibility is best left to the trial judge on
itself is weak.
account of his unmatched opportunity to observe the witnesses
Competency versus credibility of a witness
and on account of his personal access to the various indicia
Credibility: worthiness of belief, that quality which renders a witness
available but not reflected in the record.
worthy of belief; believability.
-Minor inconsistencies in the narration of facts by the witnesses do
After the competence of a witness is allowed, the consideration of his
not detract from their essential credibility as long as their
credibility follows.
testimonies on the whole are coherent and intrinsically believable.
Admissible evidence and credible evidence
Trivial inconsistencies do not rock the pedestal upon which the
Admissible: relevant to the issue and not excluded by the law or
credibility of witnesses rests, but enhances credibility as they
rules; means that the evidence is such a character that the court, pursuant to
manifest spontaneity and lack of scheming.
the rules of evidence, is bound to receive it or to allow it to be introduced at
-It is perfectly natural for different witnesses testifying on the
the trial
occurrence of a crime to give varying details as there may be some
Inadmissible evidence in relation to arrests, searches, and seizures
details which one witness may notice while the other may not
People v. Aminnudin: The marijuana found in the possession of the
observe or remember.
accused as a product of an illegal search and not being an incident to a
Falsus in uno, falsus in omnibus
lawful arrest was declared as inadmissible in evidence [noncompliance with
-False in one thing, false in everything; when the testimony of a
the requirements of the in flagrante delicto exception].
witness who may be considered unworthy of belief as to all the
People v. Laguio: The warrantless arrest was illegal and, ipso jure,
rest of his evidence if he is shown to have testified falsely in one
the warrantless search incident to the illegal arrest was likewise unlawful.
detail
Jurisprudential tenets on probative value and credibility
-Rarely applied; deals only with the weight of the evidence and is not
a positive rules of law; modern jurisprudence favors more

flexibility when the testimony may be partly believed and partly

disbelieved depending on the corroborative evidence presented at
the trial.
-Applied when the witness is shown to have willfully falsified the
truth on one or more material points. The principle presupposes
the existence of a positive testimony on a material point contrary
to subsequent declarations in the testimony.
-To completely disregard all the testimony of a witness on this
ground, his testimony must have been false as to a material point,
and the witness must have a conscious and deliberate intention to
falsify a material point.
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.
-Must be buttressed by other persuasive evidence of non-culpability
to merit culpability.
-Positive identification by truthful witness >>> alibi and denial.
-Alibi is not always false and without merit. To be exonerating, the
defense of alibi must be so airtight that it would admit of no
exception. It must be demonstrated that the person charged with
the crime was not only somewhere else when the offense was
committed, but was so far away that it would be physically
impossible to be at the place of the crime or its immediate vicinity
at the time of its commission [with clear and convincing
evidence]. R: no person can be in two places at the same time.
-Assumes significance and strength where the evidence for the
prosecution is also intrinsically weak. Rule on burden of proof not
dispensed with.
-For the defense to prosper, the requirements of time and place must
be strictly met.

-Physical impossibility distance and facility of access between the

situs criminis and the location of the accused when the crime was
committed.
-[Cases: 7 kilometers away and Manila/Cebu not a valid defense]
Frame-up
-For this claim to prosper, the defense must adduce clear and
convincing evidence to overcome the presumption that
government officials have performed their duties in a regular and
proper manner. In the absence of proof of motive to falsely impute
such a serious crime against the accused, the presumption of
regularity in the performance of duty shall prevail.
-The failure to formally charge the policemen for the supposed frameup and extortion was regarded as his tacit admission that the
evidence had not been tampered or meddled with.
-Delay and initial reluctance in reporting a crime
-The natural reluctance of a witness to get involved in a criminal case,
as well as to give information to the authorities, is a matter of
judicial notice. [It does not render their testimonies false or
incredible.] Only when the delay is unreasonable or unexplained
may it work to discredit the complainant.
Flight or non-flight of the accused
-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.
-Strong indication of guilt.
-Non-flight is not, by itself, a valid defense against the prosecutions
allegations because non-flight does not signify innocence; may be
due to several factors. It cannot prevail against the weight of
positive identification.
BURDEN OF PROOF
- Onus probandi, refers to the obligation of a party to a litigation to
persuade the court that he is entitled to relief.
-He who alleges a fact has the burden of proving the same.

-Sec. 1, Rule 131: Burden of proof is the duty of a party to present

evidence on the facts in issue necessary to establish his claim or
defense by the amount of evidence required by law.
o Not limited to the plaintiff
-Civil case: the party making allegations has the burden of proving
them by preponderance of evidence [the evidence adduced by
one side is, as a whole, superior to that of the other side].
-Administrative case: substantial evidence.
-Termination case: The law places the burden of proof upon the
employer to show by substantial evidence that the termination
was for a lawful cause and in the manner required by law. It is,
however, incumbent upon the employee to first establish by
substantial evidence the fact of his/her dismissal.
-Benefits: Whoever claims entitlement to the benefits provided by law
should establish his right thereto by substantial evidence.

-Disbarment proceedings: The burden of proof rests on the

complainant to establish the respondent lawyers liability by clear,
convincing, and satisfactory evidence.
-Constitutionality of a law: the one who attacks the constitutionality
of the law has the burden of proof; every statute is presumed to
be valid and constitutional.
-Eminent domain case: expropriating agency; rove the elements for
the valid exercise of the right of eminent domain.
-Accident insurance: the insureds beneficiary has the burden of proof
in demonstrating that the cause of death is due to the covered
peril. Once that fact is established, the burden shifts to the insurer
to show any excepted peril that may have been stipulated by the
parties.
- Attachment: The party suing has the burden to justify the attachment
because a general averment will not suffice to support the
issuance of a writ of preliminary attachment. [Fraud cannot be
presumed.]