G.R. No. 116071 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, VS. RENATO VALLADOR, ALIAS "MORITO" AND CARLOS VALLADOR, ACCUSED, RENATO VALLADOR, ACCUSED-.

Ruling

Accordingly, we now state again, as this Court has held in a long line of cases, that the trial court's determination on the issue of the credibility of witnesses and its consequent findings of fact must be given great weight and respect on appeal, unless certain facts of substance and value have been overlooked which, if considered, might affect the result of the case. [28] This is so because of the judicial experience that trial courts are in a better position to decide the question, having heard the witnesses themselves and observed their deportment and manner of testifying during the trial. It can thus more easily detect whether a witness is telling the truth or not. [29] After extensively reviewing the entire records of the case and meticulously assessing the evidence, we find no cogent reason to deviate from this rule on credibility, or any error in the evaluation or findings of the lower court which would warrant a reversal or modification of its findings and conclusions. From our careful scrutiny of the records, and as an unavoidable consequence thereof, we agree with the lower court's holding that: The said accused's pretension of self-defense is not persuasive. It cannot prevail over the positive identification by and the clear and convincing testimonies of the prosecution's material witnesses, more particularly the complainant Roy Montoya himself, that the accused committed the crime so charged. [30] There appears to be no reason to discredit the testimonies of the witnesses for the prosecution. They clearly and affirmatively gave a full account of what actually transpired on the night of November 27, 1985. They were consistent in their respective narrations on the witness stand, except for Freddie dela Cruz who testified that he heard four gunshots that night as against the testimony of the other prosecution witnesses that they only heard three gunshots. [31] But, the divergence of his perception can be explained by the shock that one may experience immediately after hearing the ostensible first two shots. Besides, we have held that inconsistencies in the testimonies of witnesses which refer to minor and insignificant details cannot destroy their credibility. Such minor inconsistencies even guarantee truthfulness and candor. [32] Be that as it may, the prosecution witnesses have positively and directly shown that it was appellant who initiated the unlawful aggression, and not Pelayo as he claims. Their testimonies on this point were categorical and forthright, and appellant has not presented any evidence showing any evil or sinister motive on the part of the prosecution witnesses that could have led them to testify falsely against and to impute to him such a serious crime. He even declared in court that no animosity existed between him and Pelayo prior to the shooting. [33] Neither has appellant offered any substantial reason why this Court should overturn the trial court's appreciation of the evidence presented against him. Instead,