This case has been cited 2 times or more.
|
2010-07-05 |
MENDOZA, J. |
||||
| The Court examined the inconsistencies in the testimonies of the prosecution witnesses but found them too inconsequential to adversely affect their overall integrity. Such minor inconsistencies in the narration of a witness do not detract from its essential credibility as long as it is in its entirety coherent and intrinsically believable. Inaccuracies may in fact suggest that the witness is telling the truth and has not been rehearsed as it is not to be expected that he will be able to remember every single detail of an incident with perfect or total recall.[28] | |||||
|
2009-10-27 |
CHICO-NAZARIO, J. |
||||
| Such inconsistency, which we consider to be minor or trivial, will not impair Doris Labini's credibility. This Court has ruled that inconsistencies in the testimonies of prosecution witnesses with respect to minor details and collateral matters do not affect the substance of their declarations, their veracity, or the weight of their testimonies. Such minor flaws may even enhance the worth of a testimony, for they guard against memorized falsities.[37] Trivial inconsistencies do not rock the pedestal upon which the credibility of the witness rests, but enhance credibility, as they manifest spontaneity and lack of scheming.[38] It is not to be expected that the witness will be able to remember every single detail of an incident with perfect or total recall.[39] Furthermore, it is to be noted that Tomasito de los Santos is one of the accused in the murder case, while Doris Labini is a prosecution witness. We, therefore, cannot simply discredit Doris Labini because of a statement coming from the mouth of an accused. | |||||