This case has been cited 1 times or more.
|
2013-06-13 |
SERENO, C.J. |
||||
| The supposed factual discrepancies in the prosecution's evidence do not hold water. The rule on material inconsistencies has been enunciated by this Court several times. In People v. Arcega,[47] we have held that "[b]y and large, the 'material inconsistencies' asserted by the accused-appellant which allegedly create grave doubts are, on the contrary, too minor, trivial and inconsequential to affect the credibility of the prosecution witnesses, the inconsistencies having been fully and sufficiently explained during trial by the witnesses themselves, and their explanations having been accepted by the Trial Court. Besides, it has been held, time and again, that minor inconsistencies and contradictions in the declarations of witnesses do not destroy the witnesses' credibility but even enhance their truthfulness as they erase any suspicion of a rehearsed testimony." | |||||