FALSUS IN UNO FALSUS IN OMNIBUS:

     In People vs. Lucena, G.R. No. 137281, April 3, 2001, the Supreme Court ruled that the testimony of a witness may be partly believed or disbelieved, depending on the corroborative evidence and intent on the part of the witness to pervert the truth. The principle falsus in uno falsus in omnibus is not strictly applied in this jurisdiction. The maxim falsus in uno, falsus in omnibus 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 in 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. Thus, where the challenged testimony is sufficiently corroborated in its material points, or where the mistakes arise from innocent lapses and not from an apparent desire to pervert the truth, the rule may be relaxed.  It is a rule that is neither absolute nor mandatory and binding upon the court, which may accept or reject portions of the witness’ testimony based on its inherent credibility or on the corroborative evidence in the case. (People vs. Negosa, G.R. No. 142856-57, August 25, 2003, Callejo, Sr., J.).