Neither do we subscribe to appellant's supposition that inconsistencies between the sworn statements of the witnesses executed before the police authorities and their testimonies in court are an indicium that they were lying. Such inconsistencies, if indeed they are, do not necessarily destroy their credibility. Sworn statements are often taken right after the harrowing event such that the witness has not yet regained sufficient composure to accurately recall every detail of the incident. The affidavits executed before the police authorities cannot be expected to contain all the details of the occurrence. Testimonies given in open court carry more weight, especially when the witness was made to withstand a protracted and grueling cross-examination. [G.R. Nos. 112716-17. December 16, 1996]
