Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

PEOPLE v. SALVADOR ALOLOD Y MORADAS

This case has been cited 3 times or more.

	GR No. 172874 2008-12-17	PEOPLE v. MARIO CASTRO LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, J.
On appeal is the decision[1] dated February 15, 2006 of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. CR-H.C. No. 00126 which affirmed in toto an earlier decision[2] of the Regional Trial Court of Pasig City, Branch 162 in Criminal Case No. 117506-H, finding accused-appellant guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of Rape and imposing upon him the penalty of reclusion perpetua.
	GR NO. 173055 2007-04-13	PEOPLE v. ROQUE G. GARALDE CALLEJO, SR., J.
We agree with the trial court and the CA that these inconsistencies refer to minor details that do not affect the credibility of witnesses or the probative weight of their testimonies. On the contrary, minor inconsistencies may even serve to strengthen the credibility of witnesses as they negate any suspicion that their testimonies are fabricated or rehearsed. Even the most candid of witnesses commit mistakes and make confused and inconsistent statements.[66] As held in People v. Alolod,[67] cited in People v. Bulan:[68]
	GR NO. 143404 2005-06-08	PEOPLE v. JOSE BULAN CALLEJO, SR., J.
It must be stressed that evidence to be believed must not only proceed from the mouth of a credible witness but it must also be credible in itself, such that common experience and observation of mankind lead to the inference its probability under the circumstances.[28] On the other hand, inconsistencies as to minor details and peripheral or collateral matters do not affect the credibility of witnesses nor the probative weight of their testimonies. Such minor inconsistencies may even serve to strengthen their credibility as they negate any suspicion that their testimonies are fabricated or rehearsed.[29] Even the most candid of witnesses commit mistakes and make confused and inconsistent statements. As the Court declared in People v. Alolod:[30]