PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v . RICARDO FERNANDO y MONTIAS 520 SCRA 675 (2007)
Minor inconsistencies will not impair the credibility of the prosecution’s witness. Ricardo Fernando y Montias (Fernando) was arrested in a buy bust operation with one (1) heat sealed transparent plastic bag containing white crystalline substance which tested positive results of Methylamphetamine in Caloocan City. The Regional Trial Court found him guilty of violating Sec. 11, Art. II of Republic Act 9165 otherwise known as the Dangerous Drugs Act. On appeal, Fernando contended that his arrest was an organized extortion or hulidap by the police. He also alleged that the police tried to extort money from his mother while he was in jail. He pointed out on the inconsistencies of the testimonies of the police who apprehended him.
ISSUE:
Whether or not Fernando was convicted of evidence beyond reasonable doubt
HELD:
Fernando did not present evidence to overcome the presumption that he had no authority to sell shabu nor that he had animus possidendi. Neither did he substantiate his defense of hulidap or extortion nor present evidence that the prosecution witnesses had motive to falsely charge him and/or that they did not perform their duties regularly. No evidence was adduced by Fernando to show that the buy-bust operation was resorted to in order to harass, extort, or abuse him. Moreover, for the police officers to frame him up, they must have known Fernando prior to the incident. This is clearly not the case here for Fernando himself admitted that he does not know any of the police officers who arrested him prior to the incident. Settled is the rule that discrepancies on minor matters do not impair the essential integrity of the prosecution‘s evidence as a whole or reflect on the witnesses‘ honesty. These inconsistencies, which may be caused by the natural fickleness of memory, even tend to strengthen rather than weaken the credibility of the prosecution witnesses because they erase any suspicion of rehearsed testimony. What is important is that the testimonies agree on the essential facts and that the respective versions corroborate and substantially coincide with each other to make a consistent and coherent whole. In the absence of proof of motive for falsely imputing such a serious crime, the presumption of regularity in the performance of official duty, as well as the findings of the trial court on the credibility of witnesses, shall prevail over the self-serving and uncorroborated claim of frame-up.
