The Rule of “Falsus in Uno, Falsus In Omnibus”

Those who retract their sworn statements or recant their testimony under oath, face the consequence of being guilty of “falsehood in one, falsehood in all.” Their credibility is under serious doubt and the Court should exercise extra caution in deciding which of the two sworn testimonies to admit as evidence and which one to throw out as inadmissible. In other words, a recanting witness gives the Court a heavier burden to discern deeply and decide judiciously leading to the ultimate question of Guilty or Not Guilty.

Falsus in Uno, Falsus in Omnibus is a legal maxim which means false in one thing, false in everything. A Roman legal principle indicating that a witness who willfully falsifies one matter is not credible on any matter. The underlying motive for attorneys to impeach opposing witnesses in court: the principle discredits the rest of their testimony if it is without corroboration. At common law, it is the legal principle that a witness who testifies falsely about one matter is not credible to testify about any matter. Although many common law jurisdictions have rejected a categorical application of the rule, the doctrine has survived in some American courts. In Philippine jurisdiction, many trial lawyers use

this doctrine to impeach opposing witnesses by confronting them with prior sworn statements or court testimonies where they made completely different or even contradictory testimonies.

In the case of Emiliano Lagunzad, Petitioner, v. The Court of Appeals and the People of the Philippines, [G.R. No. 104939. February 2, 1994.], the Supreme Court, speaking through Justice Camilo Quiazon, held for the High Tribunal that:” Petitioner argues that the prosecution’s evidence based primarily on the testimony of the victim, is not sufficient to convict him. According to him, the victim gave a false testimony at one point in his narration of facts and this raises the presumption that the rest of his testimony is false, under the maxim falsus in uno, falsus in omnibus (false in one part, false in everything). It is perfectly within the discretion of the trial court to accept portions of the testimony of a witness as it may deem credible and reject those which it believes to be false.”

 The Court stressed that the maxim falsus in uno, falsus in omnibus is not a positive rule of law and is in fact rarely applied in modern jurisprudence. Before this maxim can be applied, the witness must be shown to have willfully falsified the truth on one or more material points. Even then, where he is found to have done so, this does not make his entire testimony totally incredible. The court may still admit and credit those portions worthy of belief depending upon the corroborative evidence and the probabilities and improbabilities of the case. In the instant case, there is no proof that Wasawas deliberately falsified his account of the first stab wound, much less any evidence showing that he was impelled by improper motive”

It is written by my source that the evidence scholar John Henry Wigmore was an outspoken critic of the doctrine. In his Treatise on the Anglo-American System of Evidence in Trials at Common Law, he wrote:[“It may be said, once for all, that the maxim is in itself worthless, first, in point of validity, because in one form it merely contains in loose fashion a kernel of truth which no one needs to be told, and in the others it is absolutely false as a maxim of life; and secondly, in point of utility, because it merely tells the jury what they may do in any event, not what they must do or must not do, and therefore it is a superfluous form of words. It is also in practice pernicious, first, because there is frequently a misunderstanding of its proper force, and secondly, because it has become in the hands of many counsel a mere instrument for obtaining new trials upon points wholly unimportant in themselves.”

For these reason, I submit that we cannot entirely generalize and conclude peremptorily that the recanting witnesses in the Degamo multiple murder case have totally impeached their own credibility. To my mind, the case for the prosecution has suffered a tremendous damage. My former law student, Atty. Ferdinand Topacio, has done all his homework. His fellow Caviteño, DOJ Secretary Boying  Remulla and his team, have a lot of catching up to do. My eminent idol Wigmore favors the side of Teves and Topacio. Remulla must have a strong repartee.