This case has been cited 1 times or more.
|
2013-07-17 |
PEREZ, J. |
||||
| Moreover, it has been emphasized that an affidavit taken ex-parte is generally unreliable as oftentimes it is inaccurate.[13] This underscores the weight of the clarification that the prosecution witness made during the trial. Indeed, discrepancies on minor details do not erase but enhance the credibility of either the witness or his testimony. As aptly cited in People v. Cabtalan,[14] minor inconsistencies and discrepancies pertaining to trivial matters do not affect the credibility of witnesses, as well as their positive identification of the accused as the perpetrator of the crime. Similarly, as held in the case of People v. Laog,[15] where the appellant also raised the inconsistencies in the testimony of the victim, this Court declared: Nonetheless, this matter raised by appellant is a minor detail which had nothing to do with the elements of the crime of rape. Discrepancies referring only to minor details and collateral matters not to the central fact of the crime do not affect the veracity or detract from the essential credibility of witnesses' declarations, as long as these are coherent and intrinsically believable on the whole.[16] | |||||