Inconsistencies on minor details tend to strengthen, not weaken, credibility

We find purported inconsistencies more apparent than real. As correctly averred by the appellee in its brief, Glenn's answers to the questions propounded by the trial court should be considered as a clarification or rectification of his earlier answer to appellants' counsel that his brother and sister ran away before the shooting. Besides, the alleged inconsistencies do not effect the substance of Glenn's testimony. It refers only to minor and insignificant details of the incident and not to the established fact that Glenn was then present at the palce of the commission of the crime and actually witnessed the appellants' assault on Sabino. It, thus reinforces rather than weakens Glenn's credibility as "minor inaccuracies" suggest that the witness is telling the truth. [G.R. No. 95049. December 9, 1996]