"Weight of expert testimony
The petitioner likewise claims that the CA violated Section 49, Rule 130 of the Revised Rules of Court when it disregarded the testimony of defense witness Police Senior Inspector Danilo Cornelio who testified that the petitioner’s car could not have bumped the victim because the latter’s body was not thrown in line with the car, but on its side. The petitioner argues that P/Sr. Insp. Cornelio is highly qualified in the field of traffic accident investigation, and as such, his statements are “backed-up by [the] principles of applied physics, engineering, and mathematics.”[45]
The petitioner’s arguments fail to convince us.
Section 49, Rule 130 of the Revised Rules of Court states that the opinion of a witness on a matter requiring special knowledge, skill, experience or training, which he is shown to possess, may be received in evidence. The use of the word “may” signifies that the use of opinion of an expert witness is permissive and not mandatory on the part of the courts. Allowing the testimony does not mean, too, that courts are bound by the testimony of the expert witness. The testimony of an expert witness must be construed to have been presented not to sway the court in favor of any of the parties, but to assist the court in the determination of the issue before it, and is for the court to adopt or not to adopt depending on its appreciation of the attendant facts and the applicable law. It has been held of expert testimonies:
Although courts are not ordinarily bound by expert testimonies, they may place whatever weight they may choose upon such testimonies inaccordance with the facts of the case. The relative weight and sufficiency of expert testimony is peculiarly within the province of the trial court todecide, considering the ability and character of the witness, his actions upon the witness stand, the weight and process of the reasoning by which he has supported his opinion, his possible bias in favor of the side for whom he testifies, the fact that he is a paid witness, the relative opportunities for study and observation of the matters about which he testifies, and any other matters which deserve to illuminate his statements. The opinion of the expert may not be arbitrarily rejected; it is to be considered by the court in view of all the facts and circumstances in the case and when common knowledge utterly fails, the expert opinion may be given controlling effect. The problem of the credibility of the expert witness and the evaluation of his testimony is left to the discretion of the trial court whose ruling thereupon is not reviewable in the absence of abuse of discretion.[46]
We emphasize that P/Sr. Insp. Cornelio was not an eyewitness to the incident; his testimony was merely based on the Traffic Accident Report prepared by SPO4 Edgar Reyes who himself did not witness the incident. At any rate, nowhere in P/Sr. Insp. Cornelio’s testimony did he conclusively state that the petitioner could not have been involved in the incident. For clarity, we reproduce the pertinent portions of P/Sr. Insp. Cornelio’s testimony:
ATTY. SERRANO:
Q: When you said in line with the motor vehicle that bumped the victim, is it that when a victim is bumped by the motor vehicle, the victim would be thrown in line with the vehicle?
P/SR. INSP. CORNELIO:
A: Yes, Ma’am. Usually, that is the outcome of the incident.
Q: He cannot be thrown sideward?
A: Maybe if another vehicle would hit the pedestrian because that also happened. When a pedestrian is hit by a vehicle and another vehicle hit the pedestrian, it will be thrown somewhere else.
Q: Mr. Witness, you are testifying as far as the vehicle of Tabao is concerned. You said that the line of vehicle that bumped the victim would be in line. Are you telling us that it is not possible that when the vehicle of Tabao hit the victim, the victim would be thrown sidewards?
A: Yes, Ma’am.
Q: What do you mean, yes, Ma’am?
A: He can be thrown either in front of the vehicle that hit the victim or slightly offset with the car of Tabao. It [may be] but not far from the side.
Q: But he would be thrown sidewise[,] not frontal?
A: Slightly to the side but not considerable length of distance away from the car. It is sidewards.
Q: In your Mathematics, do you consider that if a vehicle is speeding fast, he could have thrown anything that is bumped by that vehicle far away from the vehicle?
A: Yes, Ma’am, possible.
Q: So, that probability is also possible aside from the probability that you said the victim is thrown in line or in front. So, you are now saying it could be said that the victim can be thrown sidewise?
A: It [may be] thrown sidewise. As I said [a while] ago, it might be slightly offset with the vehicle that hit the pedestrian but not too far from the side of the bumping vehicle.
Q: So, it could depend on the speed of the vehicle that bumped the object bumped?
A: Yes, Ma’am.
Q: Whether it is forward or sidewise, the distance of the object thrown would depend on the speed of the vehicle that bumped?
A: Yes, Ma’am.
Q: So, if it is speeding, it could be thrown farther?
A: Yes, Ma’am.
Q: Sidewise or frontal?
A: It should be frontal.
Q: You said it could be thrown sidewise do I take it correct[ly,] it can be thrown sidewise also?
A: Maybe. As I have said [a while] ago, it [may be] slightly offset with the line of the vehicle.
x x x x
Q: So, do we take it from you that your basis only of telling the court that Tabao is not in [any way] responsible is the distance of the victim from the car that bumped?
A: I am not saying categorically that the car of Tabao is not responsible. But as I can see in the sketch presented today in this Honorable Court, the position of the victim is too far from the vehicle of Mr. Tabao. If I were the investigator in this particular case, I should indicate the measurement of the victim from the car and this sketch [does] not indicate the distance.
Q: Now, failure of the investigator to indicate the distance, would that show that it was not Tabao who bumped the victim?
A: I cannot say categorically that the car of Tabao indeed, hit the victim. Because the distance is very significant in this sketch for proper evaluation.
x x x x
Q: So, it cannot be said that when an object is bumped by a vehicle, it will be thrown forward. It will all depend on which portion of the bumper hit by object bumped?
A: Yes, Ma’am.[47]
From the foregoing, it is clear that P/Sr. Insp. Cornelio did not discount the possibility that the victim could have been thrown on the side. He likewise admitted that the location of an accident victim in relation to the vehicle would also depend on the speed of the vehicle and the point of impact."
