Para di ko ma-libel, ako na lang ni i-copy paste ang text gikan mismo sa Abaya v People, G.R. No. 96389: “xxx The fact that a witness may have lied at one instance on a certain point does not make his entire testimony totally incredible and therefore inadmissible, IN THE LIGHT OF SUFFICIENT EVIDENCE TO ESTABLISH THE COMMISSION OF THE CRIME, THE EYEWITNESSING OF THE CRIMINAL ACT COMMITTED IN HIS PRESENCE AND THE SPONTANEOUS IDENTIFICATION OF THE CRIMINAL.” (Capitalization supplied)
In short, while indeed it is true that just because Advincula lied in the past does not mean that he is lying now, courts are still cautioned to accept the testimonies of known liars, because the general rule is still once a liar always a liar. When should the adjucating officer believe that a formerly known liar is not lying this time? When there is SUFFICIENT EVIDENCE that a crime has been committed, that the known liar is an EYEWITNESS to the crime, and the IDENTIFICATION of the criminal. With all due respect, it is in the SUFFICIENT EVIDENCE requirement that the case must be thrown out, because if we only have the testimony of Mr. Advincula, who allegedly lied in the past, without any other evidence other than his self-serving testimony, we will not have SUFFICIENT EVIDENCE that a crime has been committed.
