A cursory reading of the cross-examination, in relation to the

Judicial-Affidavit witness Mucsin submitted before this

Honorable Court, would reveal a number of irreconcilable
inconsistensies such as that earlier demonstrated. The same
would only show that the same were mere afterthoughts,
product of Plaintiff and wintness Mucsin dubious intention to
collude. Nevertheless, such is evidently the motive for the
malicious and perjurious statements made witness Mucisn to
pusue their malevolent claims.
In the case of Domingo M. Ulep v. People of the Philippines,
G.R. No. 183849, June 11, 2011, the Supreme Court had the
occasion to discuss about inconsistencies in the testimony of
witnesses, to wit:
Appellate courts generally accord finality to the
trial courts findings but not when, as in this case,
such findings are evidently flawed. Tuzon said that
a police asset directly tipped him that Ulep was
about to buy shabu from a source; Labutong said,
however, that it was the Chief Police Inspector who
told them that Ulep had just bought shabu from
the source. Labutong said that the police had
been watching Ulep as a user for a month before
the incident; Tuzon said they only came to know
Ulep after they apprehended and brought him to
the police station. Also, Tuzon said that he and
Labutong went to Barangay 13 on board a tricycle
that he drove; Labutong was sure, on the other
hand, that they came in a patrol car which he
himself drove.
These inconsistencies are
irreconcilable and could not possibly be the result
of mere memory lapses. They bear the signs of
poor fabrication. Appellate courts generally accord
finality to the trial courts findings but not when,
as in this case, such findings are evidently flawed.
Tuzon said that a police asset directly tipped him
that Ulep was about to buy shabu from a source;

Labutong said, however, that it was the Chief

Police Inspector who told them that Ulep had just
bought shabu from the source. Labutong said that
the police had been watching Ulep as a user for a
month before the incident; Tuzon said they only
came to know Ulep after they apprehended and
brought him to the police station. Also, Tuzon said
that he and Labutong went to Barangay 13 on
board a tricycle that he drove; Labutong was sure,
on the other hand, that they came in a patrol car
which he himself drove. These inconsistencies
are irreconcilable and could not possibly be
the result of mere memory lapses. They
bear
the
signs
of
poor
fabrication.
(underscoring and emphasis supplied.)
Applying the same principle, it cannot be over
emphasized that the complaint shows that more than half of
the allegations contained therein are incredulous and
concocted all to pursue their malignant agenda.