This case has been cited 1 times or more.
|
2007-02-23 |
GARCIA, J. |
||||
| Appellants then resort to pointing inconsistencies/inadequacies in the testimonies of YYY and ZZZ, such as the title of the movie they watched on television in the house of Aling Fely; the exact time they arrived at the house of Aling Fely; and whether ZZZ shouted at the appellants upon seeing their sister XXX being dragged by them. To the mind of the Court, the inconsistencies/deficiencies alluded to are too trivial to merit consideration, referring as they do to minor and irrelevant matters. For sure, it is of little or no significance at all as to what time the siblings arrived at the house of Aling Fely. It is too petty, as well, to quibble over the title of the movie they watched on Aling Fely's television. What is important is that YYY and ZZZ saw the three appellants perform the acts preparatory to their commission of the crime. The Court is thus consistent in ruling that minor incongruences even serve to strengthen, rather than weaken, the credibility of witnesses[22] as they dispel the testimonies as rehearsed. Too, ample margin of error and understanding must be accorded to young witnesses like YYY, 10 years old, and ZZZ, 7 years old, who, much more than adults, would be gripped with tension due to the novelty of the experience of testifying before a court.[23] | |||||