[G.R. No. 128181. June 10, 1999] THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs.

BONIFACIO RADA and ADRIANO SACDALAN, accused-appellants. An information for Multiple Murder was filed against appellants before the Regional Trial Court of Calauag, Quezon in connection with the killing of Simeon, Isidro and Leonora, all surnamed Castillo. Appellants denied the accusation and invoked alibi. The prosecution presented as witnesses Aida Castillo, Zenaida Castillo and Juanito Castillo. Zenaida, granddaughter of victims Isidro and Leonora, testified that she heard several gunshots and saw her uncle Simeon fell down. Two armed men in fatigue uniforms, who she identified as appellants, entered their house and she heard her aunt Aida beg for mercy, and moments later she heard two more gunshots. She likewise testified that while on their way to the hospital, her grandmother repeatedly mentioned the names of appellants. Aida, on the other hand, testified that she woke up her husband Simeon when somebody stoned their house. Simeon turned on the light at the balcony of their house. He was about to reach the room of his parents when he felled by gunshots fired from outside. Afterwards, appellants entered their house and fired two more shots to finish him off despite her pleas for mercy. Juanito, son of the victims Isidro and Leonora, testified, among others, that on their way to the hospital, his wounded mother told him that appellants were the assailants. Giving credence to the testimonies of the witnesses, the trial court found appellants guilty of the crime of murder qualified by treachery and sentenced them to suffer the penalty of three (3) counts each of Reclusion Perpetua and to indemnify the heirs of the victim. Hence, this petition. Issue/Held: After a careful review of the evidentiary record, we find no reason to disturb the findings and conclusions of the trial court. Accused-appellants' disclaimers must fail in the light of the positive identification made by Aida Castillo and Zenaida Castillo who were both present when the killings took place. The alleged contradictions in the testimony of the eyewitnesses pointed out by accusedappellants refer to a minor detail which is not sufficient to overthrow the probative value accorded by the trial court to the testimony of said eyewitnesses. On the contrary, the testimony of the witnesses further bolster the fact that victim Leonora Castillo repeatedly identified accused-appellants as the perpetrators of the crime. It has been our consistent ruling that minor inconsistencies and contradictions in the declarations of witnesses do not destroy the witnesses' credibility but even enhance their truthfulness as they erase any suspicion of a rehearsed testimony On the whole, the alleged variance in the declarations of Juanito and that of Aida and Zenaida as to whether other persons were present when Leonora identified accused-appellants as the killers,

is inconsequential. The witnesses testifying to the same event do not have to be consistent in every detail as differences in recollection or viewpoints or impressions are inevitable Indeed, if rights were to be lost merely because witnesses, while agreeing on the essential fact, fail to testify harmoniously on all the particulars, a very large proportion of cases involving wrongs would find no redress in law. Hence, variations in the testimony of witnesses on the same side in respect to minor, collateral or incidental matters do not usually impair the weight of their united testimony to the prominent facts The slight delay of only 7 days on the part of the prosecution witnesses in reporting the incident does not render their testimony less credible. The non-disclosure by these witnesses to the police authorities of accused-appellants' identities immediately after the occurrence of the crime is not entirely against human experience. In fact, the Court has consistently ruled that the initial reluctance of witnesses to volunteer information about a criminal case due to fear of reprisal is common and has been judicially declared not to affect credibility The record is bereft of any evidence that the prosecution witnesses have improper motives to testify falsely against accused-appellants. Thus, we adhere to the established rule that absent evidence showing any reason or motive for prosecution witnesses to perjure, the logical conclusion is that no such improper motive exists, and their testimony is thus worthy of full faith and credit To be sure, Leonora's revelation of the names of accused-appellants should be considered as a dying declaration. An ante mortem statement is evidence of the highest order because at the threshold of death, all thoughts of fabricating lies are stilled All that accused-appellants could offer by way of defense are alibi and denial. These defenses cannot prevail over the positive identification of credible prosecution witnesses as well as where there is an ante mortem statement of the victim received in evidence either as a dying declaration or as part of the res gestae Especially must this be so, in view of defense witnesses Sgt. Verde and Kagawad Tolentino's claim that the place where they allegedly were at the time of the incident is only about two kilometers from the crime scene (tsn, Feb. 18, 1992, p. 42; Feb. 19, 1992, pp. 16-17). Essential to a valid defense of alibi is the physical impossibility of the accused to be present at the scene of the crime at the time of the commission thereof (People vs. Daquipil, 240 SCRA 314 [1995]; People vs. Dayson, 242 SCRA 124 [1995]). Accused-appellants failed to demonstrate any of these elements in the case at bench.