• “false in one thing, false in everything” (Frondarina v. Malazarte, G.R. No. 148423, December 6, 2006)
1) Falsus in uno, falsus in omnibus has been abandoned and is no longer applicable nor can be made use of in a case.
2) The principle FALSUS IN UNO FALSUS IN OMNIBUS is not strictly applied in this jurisdiction. (People v. Negosa, En Banc, G.R. No. 142856057, August 25, 2003)
3) 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. (Ibid.)
4) The legal maxim falsus in uno, falsus in omnibus, cited by Northwest, is not a positive rule of law and is not strictly applied in this jurisdiction. Before this maxim can be applied, the witness must be 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. (Northwest Airlines, Inc. v. Chiong, G.R. No. 155550, January 31, 2008)