This case has been cited 1 times or more.
|
2003-09-30 |
QUISUMBING, J. |
||||
| After going over the transcripts of the witnesses' testimonies, we find no reason to disturb the findings of the trial court. With respect to the statements of Gumpic, we agree with the Solicitor General that alleged inconsistencies refer only to irrelevant and collateral matters, which have nothing to do with the elements of the crime. It is axiomatic that slight variations in the testimony of a witness as to minor details or collateral matters do not affect his or her credibility as these variations are in fact indicative of truth and show that the witness was not coached to fabricate or dissemble.[84] An inconsistency, which has nothing to do with the elements of a crime, is not a ground to reverse a conviction.[85] | |||||