CREDIBILITY OF WITNESSES

Credibility of witnesses is determined by the conformity of their testimonies to

human knowledge, observation and experience.
xxx
Verily, the issue of credibility, when it is decisive of the guilt or innocence of the
accused, is determined by the conformity of the conflicting claims and recollections
of the witnesses to common experience and to the observation of mankind as
probable under the circumstances. It has been appropriately emphasized that "[w]e
have no test of the truth of human testimony, except its conformity to our
knowledge, observation, and experience. Whatever is repugnant to these belongs to
the miraculous and is outside of judicial cognizance."

MEDINA vs. PEOPLE, G.R. No. 161308, January 15, 2014 citing Salonga, Philippine
Law on Evidence, 3rd Ed., 1964, p. 774, quoting New Jersey Vice Chancellor Van
Fleet in Daggers v. Van Dyck, 37 N.J. Eq. 130.

Credibility of witnesses not affected by minor inconsistencies.

The perceived inconsistency on whether Gepayo knows Ampuan even before the
incident is inconsequential as to discredit the credibility of Gepayos testimony. The
inconsistency pointed out by appellants pertains only to collateral or trivial matters
and has no substantial effect on the nature of the offense. In fact, it even signifies
that the witness was neither coached nor was lying on the witness stand. What
matters is that there is no inconsistency in Gepayos complete and vivid narration
as far as the principal occurrence and the positive identification of Ampuan as one
of the principal assailants are concerned. The Court has held that although there
may be inconsistencies in the testimonies of witnesses on minor details, they do not
impair their credibility where there is consistency in relating the principal
occurrence and positive identification of the assailant.

PEOPLE vs. MAMARUNCAS, G.R. No. 179497, January 25, 2012