Finally, petitioner argues that the reliance of the CA on the statements of ordinary witnesses like

Michael, Flores and Enseo is contrary to Sections 48 37 and 5038 of Rule 130 of the Rules of Court, because
they are incompetent to testify on whether the statements against ACP Suñega-Lagman in the Omnibus
Motion constituted malicious imputations against her person.

As a rule, the opinion of a witness is inadmissible because a witness can testify only to those facts which
he knows of his own personal knowledge 39 and it is for the court to draw conclusions from the facts
testified to. Opinion evidence or testimony refers to evidence of what the witness thinks, believes or
infers in regard to facts in dispute, as distinguished from his personal knowledge of the facts
themselves.40 In this case, however, prosecution witnesses Michael, Flores and Enseo barely made a
conclusion on the defamatory nature of the statements in petitioner's Omnibus Motion, but merely
testified on their own understanding of what they had read.