This case has been cited 1 times or more.
|
2009-10-02 |
BRION, J. |
||||
| In this respect, the discrepancies the accused-appellant points out, namely: whether both witnesses spoke to the female asset prior to the buy-bust operation; whether the female asset knew the full name of the accused-appellant; and whether the police kept a dossier on the accused-appellant, all refer to events which occurred prior to the buy-bust operation. They are extraneous matters with no direct bearing on the evidence establishing the elements of the crimes charged. The inconsistencies, if any, refer to minor matters that enhance, rather than destroy, the veracity of the witnesses' testimonies; they serve to remove any suspicion that these testimonies were contrived or rehearsed.[50] More importantly, these discrepancies did not contest the categorical and consistent testimonies of SPO2 Cadiz and SPO4 Guillermo and the other prosecution evidence on the elements of the crimes charged. | |||||