The Witnessing Empiricist

Evidence is purely epistemology. Thus, Santiago asserts that he saw Pedro killed Juan; he opens himself to plethora of questions. Of course, reason dictates that any responsible person who makes a claim guarantees that he is prepared to advance what is acceptable as proof of the claim he makes. If he fails to do so not only is his claim compromised; his credibility suffers a dent-and sometimes an irreparable one- as well. Therefore, in so doing, a person making a claim, guarantees that his senses are not questionable or he is in his right mind when he saw the incident. The school of thought on empiricism is very instructive on this. 

Empiricism is a school of thought which teaches that knowledge came from the senses [as oppose to rationalism, which asserts that knowledge is innate]. Thus, at one point Locke pronounced that the human mind is tabu la rasa or an empty slate, which can be filled by one’s experiences and perceptions, i.e. one knows that an ember is extremely hot because at point of his life he had experienced its hotness either by accidental or intentional contact.

This school of thought was championed by John Locke, George Berkeley, and David Hume. But for this endeavour, Hume will be given great consideration.

Hume’s philosophical endeavour was focused on the analysis that lively and forceful perceptions are superior to static and less lively ideas. Thus, in his essay Enquiry Concerning Human Understanding, he stressed: 

"everyone will readily allow that there is a considerable difference between the perceptions of the mind, when a man feels the pain of excessive heat, or the pleasure of moderate warmth, and when afterwards he recalls to his memory this sensation or anticipate it by his imagination…

...the most lively thought is still inferior to the dullest sensation…

...here therefore we may divide all the perceptions of the mind into two classes or species, which are distinguished by their different degrees of force and vivacity. The less forcible and lively are commonly denominated thoughts or ideas. The other species want a name in our language. ... Let us, therefore use a little freedom and call them impressions employing that word in a sense somewhat different from the usual. [The "usual sense" is an "impressed copy" as when one presses a key into a soft block of wax. but in Hume’s "somewhat different" sense of impression, emotions like anger or fear, which are not really "copies/impressions", are also considered to be lively impressions]. By the term impression, then, I mean all our more lively perceptions, when we hear, or see, or feel, or love, or hate, or desire, or will. And impressions are distinguished from ideas, which are the less lively perceptions, of which we are conscious, when we reflect on any of these sensations or movements ["more lively/vivid impressions"] above mentioned.” 

For Hume, those that will be usually retained in the mind are impressions of one’s experiences. And it follows [as it should be!] that when a person relates these impressions, he would relate it the manner he had perceived or experienced it.

Relative to the rule on witnesses 

The Rules of Court provides that:

Rule 130, Section 20- Witnesses; their qualifications. Except as provided in the next succeeding section, all persons who can perceive, and perceiving, can make known their perception to others, may be witnesses.

When a witness testifies in court, he narrates the impressions of his perception. Thus, giving great consideration to Hume’s position, it is expected that a witness will testify on lively and forceful impressions. The embellishment of these impressions destroys the very essence of testifying since the witness will not be communicating his perceptions per se; rather he is communicating something which is supplemented [or sometimes adulterated] by his playful imagination. Thus,

Atty. Z: Mr. witness you testified that you saw the accused stabbed the victim Mr. B?

Mr. X: Yes sir.

Atty. Z: Now, Mr. X, do you remember the apparel of the man who stabbed B?

Mr. X: Yes sir, he is wearing jeans, a robber shoes and a red long sleeve shirt.

Atty.Z: What is the color of his jeans?

Mr. X: Black sir.

Atty. Z: Did you notice any mark on the apparel of the suspect?

Mr. X: Yes sir, his shirt is mark adidas, the brand of his shoe is puma, and he is wearing a Levi’s jeans.

Atty. Z: How far are you from where the incident happened?

Mr. X: I was more or less 10 meters away sir.

Kahit hindi mo harapang sabiin sa korte na nagsisinungaling and witness, the court already knows it. Why?

Pursuant to Hume’s theory, the witness is embellishing his testimony. Human experience would tell that a person who had just witness a terrifying incident will remember only the dominant details, since they are forceful and lively impressions...kaya hindi pwedeng sabihin ng isang tao na nakakita ng katakot-takot na pangyayari na....oi nanakasak ang nakasuot ng adidas...oi nanaksak ang nakasout ng levi's... oi nanaksak ang nakasout ng nike. 

Common sense would tell that, a person who is 10 meters away from the commission of the crime vividly saw the brand of the apparel of the suspect. These things are not dominant and are not forceful and lively so as to create an indelible impression on the witness' mind.