CJ Davide, First Division, PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee vs. SALVADOR TORIO @ "Adong," accused-appellant [G.R. Nos. 132216 & 133479. November 17, 1999]

While there indeed may be a conflict in the statements of Pacita on this point, the contradiction as can be seen in the foregoing excerpts is more apparent then real.  It, in fact, reveals that Pacita’s testimonial declarations stemmed from confusion and emotional stress as a result of testifying on a sensitive matter and not from a deliberate attempt to twist the truth.  Be that as it may, the contradiction, if at all, refers to a minor and insignificant detail which hardly dents Pacita’s credibility as a witness.  To be sure, honest inconsistencies on minor and trivial matters serve to strengthen rather than destroy the credibility of a witness to a crime, especially when the crime is shocking to the conscience and numbing to the senses.[i People v. Patalin, Jr., G.R. No. 125539, 27 July 1999, 311 SCRA 186, citing People v. Agunias, 279 SCRA 52 [1997]. ]

Certain minor variances in the details of a witness’ account, more frequently than not, can be badges of truth rather than indicia of falsehood and they often bolster the probative value of the testimony.[iiPeople v. Molina, G.R. No. 129051, 28 July 1999, 311 SCRA 517, citing People v. Talledo, 262 SCRA 544 [1996]] Furthermore, it must be pointed out that “[E]ven where a witness has been found to have deliberately falsified the truth in some particulars, it is not required that the whole of his testimony be rejected.[iiiPeople v. Ortiz, 266 SCRA 641 [1997]. ] The testimony of a witness may be believed in part and disbelieved in part, depending upon the corroborative evidence and the probabilities and improbabilities of the case.”[ivPeople v. Dela Cruz, G.R. No. 130608, 26 August 1999, 313 SCRA 189, citing People v. Julian, 270 SCRA 733 [1997]. ]

Justice Ynares-Santiago, En Banc, People v. Bawang [G.R. No. 131942.  October 5, 2000]

The perceived contradictions in the testimonies of Delia and the other prosecution witnesses refer only to minor matters that do not touch upon the commission of the crime itself. Inconsistencies in the testimony of witnesses when referring only to minor details and collateral matters do not affect the substance of their declaration, their veracity, or the weight of their testimony. Although there may be inconsistencies on minor details, the same do not impair the credibility of the witnesses10 [People vs. Lampaza, G. R. No. 138876, November 24, 1999; People vs. Palma, G. R. Nos. 130206-08, June 17, 1999; People vs. Abangin, 297 SCRA 655 (1998).] where, as in this case, there is no inconsistency in relating the principal occurrence and positive identification of the assailant.11 [People vs. Sanchez, et al., 302 SCRA 21 [1999]; Sumalpong vs. Court of Appeals, 268 SCRA 764 [1997].] The failure of Delia to recall some details of the crime, instead of suggesting prevarication, precisely indicates spontaneity and is to be expected from a witness who is of tender age and unaccustomed to court proceedings.12 [People vs. Narido, G. R. No. 132058, October 1, 1999.] "A rapist cannot expect the hapless object of his lechery to have the memory of an elephant and the cold precision of a mathematician because total recall of an incident is not expected of a witness especially if it is the victim herself who is on the witness stand."13 [People vs. Travero, 276 SCRA 301, 310 [1997], citing People vs. Mandap, 244 SCRA 457 [1995].

Jutice Pardo, First Division PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. RODOLFO BATO alias "RUDY BATO," accused-appellant. [G.R. No. 134939. February 16, 2000]

The alleged inconsistency in her testimony pertaining to the pain she felt during the rape is only a minor detail and should detract from the weight and credibility of her testimony. 19 [People v. Sugano, G.R. No. 127574, July 20, 1999, p. 13; People v. Padilla, 301 SCRA 265, 275 (1999).] Errorless recollection of a harrowing incident cannot be expected of a witness especially when she is recounting details of an experience so humiliating and so painful as rape. 20 [People v. Calayca, 301 SCRA 192, 200 (1999).]

En Banc, Justice Quisumbing, People v. Caloso [G.R. Nos. 133343-44. March 2, 2000]

Said inconsistency can be explained by the fact that Yolanda actually complained of having been raped on three separate occasions, on December 17, 1993, on December 20, 1993 and on January 28, 1994. As per her complaint-affidavit, it was actually on the occasion of the December 20 rape when Sapinoso set up a folding bed, not on January 28. It must, likewise, be kept in mind that Yolanda was only fifteen years old at the time she testified. It is not unnatural for inconsistencies to crop up in her testimony as she is more prone to error than an adult person (People v. Esquila, 254 SCRA 140 [1996]). In fact, we have held that "[p]rotracted cross-examination of a 16 year old girl not accustomed to public trial would produce contradictions which nonetheless would not destroy her credibility (People v. Gozum, 135 SCRA 295 [1985])."

Per Curiam, En Banc, People v. Aguila, Sapinoso et al., [G.R. No. 122540. March 22, 2000]

It is settled that minor discrepancies do not damage the essential integrity of the evidence in its material whole nor reflect adversely on the witnesses’ credibility.56 [People v. Sañez, G.R. No. 132512, December 15, 1999, citing People v. Simon, 234 SCRA 555 (1994).] In fact, they may even strengthen their credibility.57 [People v. Carullo, 289 SCRA 481 (1998), citing People v. Lorenzo, 240 SCRA 624 (1995).]

Considering that Marites’ experience was harrowing, it is understandable that she would not remember its minor details for precisely, no woman would wish to retain in her memory file such tragedy which had befallen her. Thus, the Court has held that victims of rape hardly remember the dates, number of times and manner they were violated.58 [People v. Villamor, 297 SCRA 262 (1998), citing People v. Zaballero, 274 SCRA 627 (1997).]

Justice Puno, First Division, Peoplve v. Mitra [G.R. No. 130669. March 27, 2000]  

It is also settled that inconsistencies between two statements of a witness should be determined not by considering words or phrases separately, but by the entire impression or effect of what has been said or done.19 [People v. Gabas, 233 SCRA 77 (1994).]

En Banc, Justice Mendoza, People v. Licanda y Bolanti [G.R. No. 134084. May 4, 2000]

Well-settled is the rule that "inconsistencies on minor details of the testimony of a witness serve to strengthen his credibility as they are badges of truth rather than an indicia of falsehood."25 [People v. Perez, G.R. No. 129213, December 2, 1999.] In People v. Arafiles,26 [G.R. No. 128814, February 9, 2000.] we held:

We have ruled that the protracted examination of a young girl, not accustomed to public trial, could produce contradictions which nevertheless would not destroy her credibility. Paradoxically, they may be badges of spontaneity, indicating that the witness was unrehearsed. . .

Justice Mendoza, Second Division, People v. Dreu [G.R. No. 126282. June 20, 2000]

Errorless recollection of a harrowing incident cannot be expected of a witness especially when she is recounting details of an experience so humiliating and so painful as rape.21 [People vs. Calayca, 301 SCRA 192 (1999), p.200.] Moreover, the minor lapses contradict SALVADOR’s claim that the testimonies were rehearsed. We believe that the lapses serve to strengthen rather than weaken the credibility of the witnesses because they erase any suspicion of coached or rehearsed testimony.22 [Garigadi, supra, citing People vs. Pamor, 237 SCRA 462 (1994); People vs. Padilla, 242 SCRA 629 (1995); People vs. Conde, 252 SCRA 681 (1996)]

Justice Gonzaga-Reyes, Third Division, PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. SALVADOR LOMERIO, defendant-appellant.  [G.R. No. 129074. February 28, 2000]

This contention is without merit. The perceived discrepancies in the testimony of Bermalyne as to the number of times she was raped are inconsequential. Inconsistencies of this nature can be expected of a young girl whose harrowing experience she is called upon to recall.12 [People vs. Empante, G.R. Nos. 130665 and 137996-97, April 21, 1999; People vs. Padilla, 301 SCRA 275 (1999)] They tend to buttress, rather than weaken, her credibility, since they indicate that her testimony was not contrived.13 [E.g. People vs. Calayca, 301 SCRA 192 (1999)] Indeed, victims of rape hardly retain in their memories the dates, number of times and manner they were violated. For this reason, it has been held that the exact date of the commission of the rape is not an essential element of the crime.14 [People vs. Lim, G.R. Nos. 131861-63, August 17, 1999; People vs. Alba, G.R. Nos. 131858-59, April 14, 1999; People vs. Villamor, 297 SCRA 262 (1998); People vs. Bugarin, 273 SCRA 384 (1997)] What is material is that the commission of the rape by accused-appellant against complainant is sufficiently proven. Discrepancies should refer to significant facts which are crucial to the guilt or innocence of an accused. Inconsistencies and discrepancies in details which are irrelevant to the elements of the crime, such as the exact time of the commission of the crime, are not grounds for acquittal.15 [People vs. Maglente, G.R. Nos. 124559-66, April 30, 1999.]

En Banc, Per Curiam, THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. BERNABE SANCHA, accused-appellant. [G.R. Nos. 131818-19. February 3, 2000]

Since time is not a material element of rape, it is sufficient that complainant alleged in the complaint that the crime was committed on or about December 11, 1992. What this Court said in People v. Maglente,³⁴ 306 SCRA 546 (1999).34 another case of incestuous rape, applies to this case:

It is indeed incumbent upon the prosecution to establish the guilt of the defendant beyond a reasonable doubt but to justify acquittal based on reasonable doubt, the doubt should relate to the facts constitutive of the crime charged. Discrepancies should touch on significant facts which are crucial to the guilt or innocence of an accused. Conversely, inconsistencies and discrepancies in details which are irrelevant to the elements of the crime are not grounds for acquittal. We stress that the exact date when complainant was sexually abused is not an essential element of the offense of rape. What is material in a rape case is the commission of the rape by the accused-appellant against the complainant.

At all events, the defense should have taken steps to impeach the credibility of the testimonies of the two witnesses.  However, the defense failed to do so.  It did not ask Grace whether she had previously made statements contradictory or inconsistent with her testimony nor did it make her explain any  inconsistency.  The credibility of the testimonies of the victim and her mother could only be questioned if they fail to explain the inconsistencies.  Such procedure was not followed in this case, where the defense even decided not to cross-examine complainant’s mother.

Justice Mendoza, Second Division, THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. ALBERTO GARCIA y BOTON, accused-appellant. [G.R. No. 117406.  January 16, 2001]

It is a well-settled rule that the trial court’s assessment of witnesses’ credibility will not be disturbed on appeal, absent any showing of palpable error or grave abuse of discretion.23 [People v. Oliver, GR No. 123099, February 11, 1999; People v. Barredo, GR No. 122850, October 7, 1998; People v. Gaddi, 170 SCRA 649, February 27, 1989; People v. Pascual, 204 SCRA 618, December 5, 1991; People v. Naparan, 225 SCRA 714, August 30, 1993; People v. Deopante, 263 SCRA 691, October 30, 1996; and People v. Escandor, 265 SCRA 444, December 9, 1996.] Appellate courts generally accord credence to the factual findings of the trial court, for the latter was in the best position to observe the witnesses’ deportment and manner of testifying.24 [People v. Atop, GR Nos. 124303-05, February 10, 1998, and People v. Agbayani, 284 SCRA 315, January 16, 1998.] In the present case, we find no reason to overturn the ruling of the trial court that the victim’s testimony was credible.

Contrary to the contentions of the defense, the alleged inconsistencies are minor; they do not affect the credibility of the victim. Indeed, they should be taken as indicia of truth rather than as badges of falsehood, for they erase any suspicion of a rehearsed testimony.25 [People v. Salvatierra, 276 SCRA 55, July 24, 1997; People v. Zumil, 275 SCRA 182, July 8, 1997; People v. Bergonia, 273 SCRA 79, June 6, 1997.] After her traumatic experience, we do not expect the victim to remember vividly the appellant's threats or each and every ugly detail of the sexual assault.26 [People v. Rabosa, 273 SCRA 142, June 9, 1997; and People v. Butron, 272 SCRA 352, May 7, 1997.] What is significant is that Elizabeth was clear and consistent in asserting that Vergel had intimidated and raped her. On the basis of the victim’s credible testimony, the conviction of appellant is inevitable.

Justice Panganiban, Third Division, PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. YAMASITO VERGEL @ "BUBOY" and DANNY DURAN, accused,YAMASITO VERGEL @ "BUBOY," accused-appellant. [G.R. No. 128813. October 4, 1999]

We are not convinced. The "conflicts" cited by appellant are largely semantical, not factual, in character. Whether appellant forcibly made her lie down on the floor or whether he dumped her makes no substantial difference in appreciating the fact of the crime: that she was down on the floor against her will. Likewise, appellant makes too much ado about the discrepancy between her being "pressed forward" and her being "lifted"; the allegedly conflicting statements equally mean that he forced her to go to the nipa hut. Moreover, the well-settled rule is that inconsistencies between an affidavit and a testimony do not necessarily discredit the witness, for affidavits are generally incomplete17 [People v. Padao, 267 SCRA 64, January 28, 1997; Sumalpong v. CA, 268 SCRA 764, February 26, 1997.] and are not considered final repositories of truth.18 [People v. Espanola, 271 SCRA 689, April 18, 1997; People v. Pontilar, 275 SCRA 338, July 11, 1997.]

xxx

Third Issue: Alleged Inconsistencies and "Incredibilities"

Appellant contends that the prosecution witnesses should not be accorded credence because their testimonies were replete with inconsistencies and "incredibilities." In addition to the instances alluded to earlier, appellant cites the following: the victim testified that she shouted, although she said in her Sworn Statement that she had not done so; she allegedly told her husband of the rape on the evening of the fateful day, but her husband testified that he did not return home until the afternoon of the following day.35 [Appellant’s Brief, p. 14; rollo, p. 60.]

We are not persuaded. The aforecited inconsistencies are minor in character and, as such, do not impugn the credibility of the complainant. Indicative of an unrehearsed testimony, the slight contradictions even serve to strengthen her credibility.36 [People v. Letigio, 268 SCRA 227, February 13, 1997; People v. Magallano, 266 SCRA 305, January 16, 1997; People v. Devilleres, 269 SCRA 716, March 14, 1997; People v. Butron, 272 SCRA 352, May 7, 1997; People v. Patawaran, 274 SCRA 130, June 19, 1997.] Indeed, the Court cannot expect a rape victim to remember every ugly detail of the sexual assault.37 [People v. Alas, 274 SCRA 310, June 19, 1997; People v. Sagucio, 277 SCRA 183, August 11, 1997.]

Justice Panganiban, Third Division, PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. EGMEDIO LAMPAZA, accused-appellant. [G.R. No. 138876. November 24, 1999]

Discrepancies between statements in an affidavit and those made on the witness stand would seldom discredit the declarant.21 [People vs. Travero, 276 SCRA 301.] Moreover, ample margin of error and understanding should be accorded to young witnesses, like the complainant who, much more than adults, would be gripped with tension due to the novelty of the experience of testifying before a Court.22 [People vs. De la Cruz, 276 SCRA 352.]

Justice Gonzaga-Reyes, Third Division, THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. ROLLY PARANZO, @ LORENZO PARANI, accused-appellant [G.R. No. 107800...October 26, 1999]

As we have mentioned earlier, we find the testimony of Gloridel to be clear and convincing. Her declaration that accused-appellant inserted his penis into her vagina was made in a straightforward and unshaken manner. Errorless and accurate to the last detail testimony cannot be expected of Gloridel, who was seven (7) years of age at the time of the trial. The alleged inconsistencies and lapses pointed by accused-appellant to discredit Gloridel’s testimony, e.g. that accused-appellant merely fondled her or inserted his finger in her vagina, are all minor and trivial details which do not touch upon the commission of the offense. These lapses, to our mind, serve to strengthen rather than weaken the credibility of a witness because they erase any suspicion of coached or rehearsed testimony.12 [People vs. Pamor, 237 SCRA 462 (1994); People vs. Padilla, 242 SCRA 629 (1995); People vs. Conde, 252 SCRA 681 (1996).] Indeed, Gloridel may have supplied unresponsive answers to some questions; yet a child of tender age cannot be expected to understand every question asked of her in the course of examination. Ample margin of error and understanding should be accorded to young witnesses who, much more than adults, would be gripped with tension due to the novelty of the experience of testifying before a court.13 [People vs. De la Cruz, 276 SCRA 352 (1997), citing People vs. Salazar, 221 SCRA 170 (1993).] We have repeatedly held that different people react differently to a given type of situation, there being no standard form of human behavioral response when one is confronted with a strange, startling or frightful experience.14 [People vs. Roncal, 272 SCRA 242 (1997).] While Gloridel mentioned twice during the course of her examination that she did not feel pain, this does not render her entire testimony incredible as vaginal bleeding15 [People vs. Lazaro, 249 SCRA 234 (1995).] or pain is not an element of rape. Additionally, testimony that the incident happened for a few moments only does not negate the commission of rape.

Justice Gonzaga-Reyes, Third Division, PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. SOTERO GARIGADI, accused-appellant. [G.R. No. 110111. October 26, 1999]