Peoplevs.

Castillano

Facts:

SometimeintheearlypartofJune1996,Jaime,Sr.firedhisgunindiscriminately.Afraid
thatastraybulletmighthitanymemberofhisfamily,DiosdadoaccostedJaime,Sr.and
askedhimtodesistfromfiringhisgunindiscriminately.Jaime,Sr.resentedtheintrusion.
Heremonstratedthatneighborsdidnotevencomplainabouthimfiringhisgun.Aheated
altercationensued.Jaime,Sr.thenfiredhisguntowardsthehouseofDiosdado.The
incidentgerminateddeepanimositybetweenthetwoandtheirrespectivefamilies.

OnJuly8,1996,ataround8:00p.m.Luzheardvoicesneartheirhouse.ShesawJaime,
Sr.holdingaflashlightandhistwosons,JaimeJr.andRonald,ontheirwaytothehouse.
LuzimmediatelyalertedherhusbandandtoldhimthattheCastillanoswereintheiryard.
However,DiosdadowasnonchalantandsimplytoldLuznottomindthem.Allofa
sudden,Jaime,Sr.firedhisgunatDiosdadoshouse.Terrified,Luzhastilycarriedher
babydaughterMaryJane,soughtcoverandhidnearthereardoor.Shewasaboutfive
meters away from her husband when the Castillanos barged inside their house and
gangeduponDiosdado.Jaime,Jr.andRonald,armedwithbladedweapons,tookturnsin
stabbingDiosdado.RonaldstabbedDiosdadoontherightsideofhisbreast,rightthigh
andontheback.Healsostruckhimwithaonemeterlongpipe.Notsatisfied,Jaime,Sr.
firedhisgunhittingtherightthighofDiosdado.Luzwassoshockedbythesuddenturn
ofevents.Tosilenceheroneyearoldbaby,shebreastfedher.Assoonasshecould,Luz
fledtothericepaddieswhereshehidforatime.TheCastillanosfledonboardajeep
parked in the NIA road about 200 meters from the house of Diosdado. When Luz
returnedtotheirhouse,shesawherhusbandsprawledonthegroundinapoolofhisown
blood.Diosdado,atthepointofdeath,askedherforhelp.Notknowingwhattodo,Luz
lostnotimeandrantothehouseoftheirneighborCeledonioEspirituforhelp.Celedonio
rushedtotheBulaPoliceStationandreportedtheincident.

Ateamofpolicemenwassetoutfortheconductofanonthespotinvestigationand
manhuntandeventuallyarrestoftheCastillanos.

Issue:

WhethertheinconsistentstatementsmadebyLuzmaybeimpeached?

TheSupremeCourtinthenegative.

Howwitnessisimpeachedbyevidenceofinconsistentstatement.Beforeawitnesscan
beimpeachedbyevidencethathehasmadeatothertimesstatementsinconsistentwith
hispresenttestimony,thestatementsmustberelatedtohim,withthecircumstancesof
thetimesandplacesandthepersonspresent,andhemustbeaskedwhetherhemadesuch
statements,andifso,allowedtoexplainthem.Ifthestatementsbeinwritingtheymust
beshowntothewitnessbeforeanyquestionisputtohimconcerningthem.

TheCourtagreeswiththeOfficeoftheSolicitorGeneral.Beforethecredibilityofa
witnessandthetruthfulnessofhistestimonycanbeimpeachedbyevidenceconsistingof
his prior statements, which are inconsistent with his present testimony, the cross
examinermustlaythepredicateorthefoundationforimpeachmentandtherebyprevent
aninjusticetothewitnessbeingcrossexamined.Thewitnessmustbegivenachanceto
recollectandtoexplaintheapparentinconsistencybetweenhistwostatementsandstate
thecircumstancesunderwhichtheyweremade.ThisCourtheldinPeoplev.Escosura
thatthestatementsofawitnesspriortoherpresenttestimonycannotserveasbasisfor
impeaching hercredibility unless her attention was directed to the inconsistencies or
discrepanciesandshewasgivenanopportunitytoexplainsaidinconsistencies.Inacase
wherethecrossexaminertriestoimpeachthecredibilityandtruthfulnessofawitnessvia
hertestimonyduringapreliminaryexamination,this Courtoutlinedtheprocedurein
UnitedStatesvs.Baluyot,thus:
...Forinstance,iftheattorneyfortheaccusedhadinformationthatacertainwitness,say
PedroGonzales,hadmadeandsignedaswornstatementbeforethefiscalmaterially
differentfromthatgiveninhistestimonybeforethecourt,itwasincumbentuponthe
attorneywhencrossexaminingsaidwitnesstodirecthisattentiontothediscrepancyand
toaskhimifhedidnotmakesuchandsuchstatementbeforethefiscalorifhedidnot
theremakeastatementdifferentfromthatdeliveredincourt.Ifthewitnessadmitsthe
makingofsuchcontradictorystatement,theaccusedhasthebenefitoftheadmission,
whilethewitnesshastheopportunitytoexplainthediscrepancy,ifhecan.Ontheother
hand,ifthewitnessdeniesmakinganysuchcontradictorystatement,theaccusedhasthe
righttoprovethatthewitnessdidmakesuchstatement;andifthefiscalshouldrefuse
uponduenoticetoproducethedocument,secondaryevidenceofthecontentsthereof
wouldbeadmissible.Thisprocessofcrossexaminingawitnessuponthepointofprior
contradictory statements is called in the practice of the American courts laying a
predicate for the introduction of contradictory statements. It is almost universally
accepted that unless a ground is thus laid upon crossexamination, evidence of
contradictorystatementsarenotadmissibletoimpeachawitness;thoughundoubtedlythe
matteristoalargeextentinthediscretionofthecourt.

In this case, the appellants never confronted Luz with her testimony during the
preliminaryexaminationandherswornstatement.Shewasnotaffordedanychanceto
explainanydiscrepanciesbetweenherpresenttestimonyandhertestimonyduringthe
preliminaryexaminationandherswornstatement.Theappellantsdidnotevenmarkand
offer in evidence the said transcript and sworn statement for the specific purpose of
impeachinghercredibilityandherpresenttestimony.Unlesssomarkedandofferedin
evidenceandacceptedbythetrialcourt,saidtranscriptandswornstatementcannotbe
consideredbythecourt.

Onthepurportedinconsistenciesordiscrepanciescataloguedbytheappellantsrelatingto
thetestimonyofLuzduringthepreliminaryexaminationandherswornstatement,the
OfficeoftheSolicitorGeneralpositsthat:

Sixth,Volanteindeedtestifiedthatwhenshereturnedtotheirhousefromthericefield,
afterthethreeaccusedhadleftthepremises,herhusbandwasstillalive(TSN,February
17,1997,p.19)ashewasstillabletoaskforherassistance(Ibid,p.20).Butitisnot
inconsistentwiththeexpertopinionofDr.Consolacionthatbythenatureofthewounds
sustained by the victim; the latter could have died thereof instantaneously (TSN,
February3,1997,p.35).Itisclearthatthesaidphysicianwasmerelystatingapossibility
andnotwhathappenedintheinstantcasebecauseinthefirstplace,shewasnotpresent
atthescenerightaftertheincident.

Seventh,Volantewasinsistentinhertestimonythatatthetimeofthecommissionofthe
subjectcrime,itwasbrightinsidetheirhousebecausetheyhadakerosenelampanda
bottlelampbothlightedup,oneplacedonthewallandtheotherontheceiling(Ibid,pp.
33,5253).WhileitmayappearcontradictorytoSPO1Pornillostestimonythattherewas
onlyakerosenelampatthetime,hecouldnothavebeenexpectedtonoticeallthethings
found inside the house, including the bottle lamp, because he might not have been
familiarwithitsinteriors.Or,hecouldhavefocusedhisattentionprimarilyonthebody
of the fallen victim and the objects that may be used later as evidence against the
perpetratorsofthecrime.

Eight,itisadmittedthatthetestimoniesofVolanteandSPO1Pornillosastowhotook
picturesofthecrimesceneincludingthelifelessbodyofthevictimarecontradictory.But
again,suchcontradiction,beingonlyminorandirrelevant,doesnotaffectthecredibility
oftheirtestimonies.

Andninth,theapparentlyinconsistentstatementsoftheprosecutionwitnesses(SPO1
PornillosandSPO4Javier)astotheexacttimethesubjectincidentwasreportedtothe
policeauthoritiesaresimilarlyirrelevanttothemattersinissue.Ofconsequencehereis
thefactthatonthenightthecrimewascommitted,itwasreportedtotheauthoritieswho
latereffectedthearrestoftheperpetratorsthereof.

The Court fully agrees with the foregoing ruminations of the Office ofthe Solicitor
General.Theinconsistenciesadvertedtobytheappellantspertainedonlytominorand
collateralmattersandnottotheelementsofthecrimecharged;hence,theydonotdilute
the probative weight of the testimony. It bears stressing that even the most truthful
witness can make mistakes but such innocent lapses do not necessarily affect his
credibility. The testimonies of witnesses must be considered and calibrated in their
entiretyandnotbytheirtruncatedportionsorisolatedpassages.Andthenagain,minor
contradictionsamongseveralwitnessesofaparticularincidentandaspectthereofwhich
donotrelatetothegravamenofthecrimechargedaretobeexpectedinviewoftheir
differencesinimpressions,memory,vantagepointsandotherrelatedfactors.
...Forinstance,iftheattorneyfortheaccusedhadinformationthatacertainwitness,say
PedroGonzales,hadmadeandsignedaswornstatementbeforethefiscalmaterially
differentfromthatgiveninhistestimonybeforethecourt,itwasincumbentuponthe
attorneywhencrossexaminingsaidwitnesstodirecthisattentiontothediscrepancyand
toaskhimifhedidnotmakesuchandsuchstatementbeforethefiscalorifhedidnot
theremakeastatementdifferentfromthatdeliveredincourt.Ifthewitnessadmitsthe
makingofsuchcontradictorystatement,theaccusedhasthebenefitoftheadmission,
whilethewitnesshastheopportunitytoexplainthediscrepancy,ifhecan.Ontheother
hand,ifthewitnessdeniesmakinganysuchcontradictorystatement,theaccusedhasthe
righttoprovethatthewitnessdidmakesuchstatement;andifthefiscalshouldrefuse
uponduenoticetoproducethedocument,secondaryevidenceofthecontentsthereof
wouldbeadmissible.Thisprocessofcrossexaminingawitnessuponthepointofprior
contradictory statements is called in the practice of the American courts laying a
predicate for the introduction of contradictory statements. It is almost universally
accepted that unless a ground is thus laid upon crossexamination, evidence of
contradictorystatementsarenotadmissibletoimpeachawitness;thoughundoubtedlythe
matteristoalargeextentinthediscretionofthecourt.