Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

This case has been cited 2 times or more.

	GR No. 166245 2008-04-09	ETERNAL GARDENS v. PHILIPPINE AMERICAN LIFE INSURANCE VELASCO JR., J.
As to the seeming inconsistencies between the testimony of Manuel Cortez on whether one or two insurance application forms were accomplished and the testimony of Mendoza on who actually filled out the application form, these are minor inconsistencies that do not affect the credibility of the witnesses. Thus, we ruled in People v. Paredes that minor inconsistencies are too trivial to affect the credibility of witnesses, and these may even serve to strengthen their credibility as these negate any suspicion that the testimonies have been rehearsed.[17]
	GR NO. 152351 2003-09-18	PEOPLE v. JAMIL MALA Y RAJID DAVIDE JR., C.J.
As regards the boodle money, whether its plastic wrapper was opened or remained sealed has no bearing on the fact that there was indeed boodle money used for the buy-bust operation. Well-settled is the rule that inconsistencies in minor details and collateral matters do not affect the credibility of the witnesses or the veracity or weight of their testimonies. Minor inconsistencies may even serve to strengthen the witnesses' credibility, as they negate any suspicion that the testimonies have been rehearsed.[14]