Minor Inconsistencies in Testimony Can Actually Boost a Witness’s Credibility

G.R. No. 189301, December 15, 2010

Imagine a courtroom drama where a seemingly small detail in a witness’s story throws the entire testimony into question. Does a slight discrepancy automatically mean the witness is lying? Not necessarily. Philippine jurisprudence recognizes that minor inconsistencies can actually strengthen credibility, demonstrating spontaneity and a lack of rehearsal. This principle is crucial for understanding how courts evaluate witness testimonies and ultimately determine guilt or innocence.

This case, People of the Philippines v. Jose Pepito D. Combate, delves into this very issue. It highlights the importance of evaluating testimonies in their entirety and understanding that minor, insignificant inconsistencies often bolster, rather than undermine, a witness’s believability. Let’s explore the legal principles at play and how they impacted the outcome of this case.

Legal Principles Governing Witness Testimony

Philippine courts rely on several key principles when assessing the credibility of witnesses. These principles aim to ensure that judgments are based on reliable and truthful accounts of events. Here are some of the most important:

• The Trial Court’s Assessment: The trial court’s assessment of a witness’s credibility is given great weight. Appellate courts are hesitant to overturn these assessments unless there is evidence that the lower court overlooked crucial facts or abused its discretion.
• The Doctrine of Spontaneity: Minor inconsistencies in a witness’s testimony can indicate that the account is genuine and hasn’t been rehearsed or fabricated.
• Testimony in its Totality: A witness’s testimony must be considered as a whole, including direct examination, cross-examination, and redirect examination. Isolated parts should not be taken out of context.
• Falsus in Uno, Falsus in Omnibus: This principle (false in one thing, false in everything) is not strictly applied in the Philippines. Courts can believe parts of a witness’s testimony while disbelieving others.

One particularly relevant legal precedent is the case of People v. Cristobal, where the Supreme Court stated, “Trivial inconsistencies do not rock the pedestal upon which the credibility of the witness rests, but enhances credibility as they manifest spontaneity and lack of scheming.”

These principles are rooted in the understanding that human memory is fallible and that witnesses may perceive and recall events differently. The goal is to discern truthfulness, not demand absolute perfection in every detail.

The Story of the Combate Case

The case revolves around the shooting deaths of Edmund Prayco and Leopoldo Guiro in Murcia, Negros Occidental. Jose Pepito D. Combate was accused of murder and homicide. The prosecution’s case hinged on the testimony of Jose Tomaro, an eyewitness who claimed to have seen Combate shoot both victims. The defense, however, argued that Tomaro’s testimony was inconsistent and unreliable, and presented an alibi.

Here’s a breakdown of the case’s journey through the courts:

1. The Incident: On March 16, 1995, Edmund Prayco and Leopoldo Guiro were shot. Edmund died on arrival at the hospital, while Leopoldo died the following day.
2. The Charges: Jose Pepito D. Combate was charged with murder (for Edmund’s death) and homicide (for Leopoldo’s death).
3. The Trial: The Regional Trial Court (RTC) convicted Combate based largely on the testimony of eyewitness Jose Tomaro.
4. The Appeal: Combate appealed to the Court of Appeals (CA), arguing that the RTC erred in its assessment of the evidence.
5. The CA Decision: The CA affirmed the RTC’s decision with some modifications to the awarded damages.
6. The Supreme Court: Combate then appealed to the Supreme Court, reiterating his arguments about the inconsistencies in the prosecution’s evidence.

The Supreme Court ultimately upheld Combate’s conviction, emphasizing the trial court’s assessment of witness credibility. The Court quoted People v. Osias, stating, “It is perfectly reasonable to believe the testimony of a witness with respect to some facts and disbelieve it with respect to other facts…The primordial consideration is that the witness was present at the scene of the crime and that he positively identified [the accused] as one of the perpetrators of the crime charged.” The Court also noted that Combate’s flight after the incident was evidence of his guilt.

Crucially, the Supreme Court addressed the alleged inconsistencies in Tomaro’s testimony, finding them to be minor and insufficient to undermine his overall credibility. The Court also clarified the proper awards for damages, adjusting the amounts for exemplary damages in line with prevailing jurisprudence.

“The inconsistencies are more imagined than real. The inconsistencies, like the ownership of the passenger jeepney, whether said jeepney is owned by Guiro or his mother, are so trivial and does not at all affect credibility.”

“Categorical and consistent positive identification, absent any showing of ill motive on the part of the eyewitness testifying on the matter, prevails over the defense of denial.”

Practical Implications: What Does This Mean for You?

The Combate case offers several important lessons for anyone involved in legal proceedings, whether as a witness, a litigant, or a legal professional. It reinforces the idea that witness testimony is rarely perfect and that minor discrepancies should not automatically lead to disbelief.

Key Lessons:

• Focus on the Big Picture: Courts are more concerned with the overall consistency and plausibility of a witness’s account than with minor discrepancies.
• Explain Inconsistencies: If you are a witness, be prepared to explain any inconsistencies in your testimony. A simple explanation can often resolve doubts.
• Assess Motives: Courts consider the motives of witnesses when evaluating their credibility. If a witness has a reason to lie, their testimony will be scrutinized more closely.
• Consider the Totality of Evidence: A case is not built on a single piece of evidence. Courts consider all the evidence presented when making a decision.

This case also underscores the importance of seeking legal counsel. An experienced lawyer can help you prepare for trial, present your case effectively, and challenge the credibility of opposing witnesses where appropriate.

Example: Imagine you witness a car accident. When you give your statement to the police, you misremember the color of one of the cars. This minor error doesn’t automatically invalidate your entire testimony. As long as your overall account is consistent and credible, the court is likely to give weight to your testimony.

Frequently Asked Questions (FAQs)

Here are some common questions related to witness credibility and inconsistent testimony:

Q: What is the meaning of ‘falsus in uno, falsus in omnibus’?

A: It’s a Latin term meaning “false in one thing, false in everything.” It suggests that if a witness lies about one thing, their entire testimony should be disregarded. However, Philippine courts don’t strictly apply this principle.

Q: How do courts determine if an inconsistency is ‘minor’ or ‘major’?

A: It depends on the specific facts of the case. Minor inconsistencies are typically those that don’t affect the core elements of the witness’s account. Major inconsistencies are those that cast doubt on the witness’s ability to accurately recall or perceive the events in question.

Q: Can a witness’s testimony be believed even if they have a prior criminal record?

A: Yes, but their testimony will be scrutinized more closely. A prior criminal record can affect a witness’s credibility, but it doesn’t automatically disqualify them from testifying.

Q: What is the role of a lawyer in assessing witness credibility?

A: Lawyers play a crucial role in assessing witness credibility. They can investigate a witness’s background, identify potential biases, and cross-examine them in court to expose inconsistencies or falsehoods.

Q: What happens if a witness is found to have deliberately lied under oath?

A: They can be charged with perjury, which is a criminal offense.

Q: How does flight affect a case?

A: Flight can be viewed by the court as an admission of guilt of wrongdoing.

ASG Law specializes in criminal law and litigation. Contact us or email hello@asglawpartners.com to schedule a consultation.