Our Ruling
The appeal lacks merit.
In support of their quest for acquittal, appellants tried to cast doubt on the credibility of witness Gepayo anchored on the following grounds: (1) there was serious inconsistency in his testimony on whether he knew Ampuan before the incident; (2) his actuation of just watching the incident without giving any assistance to his fallen employer as well as his immediate return to work thereafter is contrary to human nature and experience; (3) while he testified that appellant Mamaruncas was one of the wounded suspects during the encounter, he failed to identify him in court; and, (4) in his affidavit, he identified Abdul and Ampuan as one and the same person but later on testified to the contrary.
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 Gepayo’s 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 Gepayo’s complete and vivid narration as far as the principal occurrence and the positive identification of Ampuan as one of the principal assailants are concerned.23 “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.”24
It could be true that Gepayo did not retreat to a safer place during the shooting incident and did not render assistance to his wounded employer. To appellants, this reaction is contrary to human nature. We believe otherwise. This imputed omission, to our mind, does not necessarily diminish the plausibility of Gepayo’s story let alone destroy his credibility. To us, his reaction is within the bounds of expected human behavior. Surely, he was afraid that they might kill him because the malefactors were then armed with guns.25 Thus, he would not dare attempt to stop them and stake his life in the process. At any rate, it is settled “that different people react differently to a given situation or type of situation, and there is no standard form of human behavioral response when one is confronted with a strange or startling or frightful experience. Witnessing a crime is an unusual experience which elicits different reactions from the witnesses and for which no clear-cut standard form of behavior can be drawn.”26
The failure of Gepayo to identify Mamaruncas in court does not bolster appellants’ cause. As the CA correctly pointed out:
x x x We agree with the prosecution’s observation that although he did not positively identify appellant Mamaruncas as one of the shooters, he was however, able to point out that there was a third person who accompanied assailants Palao and Ampuan in approaching the victim during the incident. This is also bolstered by Insp. Mijares[’] testimony that he saw three assailants pointing their guns at the victim who was already lying prostrate on the ground.27
In any event, even without Gepayo’s identification of Mamaruncas, the unrebutted testimony of another prosecution eyewitness, Batoon, clearly points to Mamaruncas as one of the assailants. Thus:
Q: After these three persons rather Abdul Wahid together with two companions, presented the warrant of arrest to your father, what happened thereafter?
A: They pulled their guns and pointed [them at] my father.
Q: Who pulled out .45 caliber gun [and pointed it at] your father?
A: Abdul Wahid, Sir
Q: And what happened after the .45 pistol [was] pointed [at] your father?
A: My father tried to [grab] the .45 caliber from Abdul Wahid, Sir.
Q: What happened after?
A: My father was shot by one of his companion[s], Sir.
Q: Who [first shot] your father?
A: (Witness pointing to a person. [W]hen he was asked x x x his name[,] he answered that he is Renandang Mamaruncas)
x x x x
Q: After this Renandang Mamaruncas shot your father, what happened thereafter?
A: The other companion fired the next shot (witness pointing to a person sitting at the bench inside the Courtroom and when he was asked x x x his name, he answered that he is Pendatum [Ampuan].)28
Undoubtedly, the testimonies of eyewitnesses Gepayo and Batoon on material details are straightforward and consistent with each other. They personally saw appellants at the scene of the crime at the time it was committed. Their combined declarations established beyond reasonable doubt the identities of both appellants, along with their co-accused Abdul, as the perpetrators of the crime.
As to the contention that Gepayo referred to Abdul Wahid Sultan and Pendatum Ampuan as one and the same person in his affidavit29 and yet later on testified to the contrary, this Court finds the same inconsequential and will not outrightly justify the acquittal of an accused. In a very recent case,30 this Court reiterated that as between an affidavit executed outside the court and a testimony given in open court, the latter almost always prevails. It emphasized therein that:
Discrepancies between a sworn statement and testimony in court do not outrightly justify the acquittal of an accused. Such discrepancies do not necessarily discredit the witness since ex parte affidavits are often incomplete. They do not purport to contain a complete compendium of the details of the event narrated by the affiant. Thus, our rulings generally consider sworn statements taken out of court to be inferior to in court testimony (citation omitted).
The evidence at hand, moreover, clearly points out that it was the police officers who supplied the names of the suspects in Gepayo’s affidavit.31
