The key evidence given by the credible witness can win or loss the case in factual disputes. Those who have witnessed the hearing of Matobato and Colangco have opposing views about the credibility of each mentioned witness. So, how do we know which one is telling the truth? I am not suggesting anything here, but based on many research and readings, I have learned many important points on how to determine the credibility of a person.
Remember, the way in which the witness gives evidence and the way they react and deal with cross examination differs from witness to witness. If you have seen how Cayetano repeatedly asked the witness the same question but in a different way, it is a technique of a lawyer to check if the witness is telling the truth or not. Inconsistencies of the witness’s answers during the cross examination is highlighted to examine whether the witness is telling the truth or just fabricated facts. And the supporting documents and supporting witnesses of the main witness will strengthen the witness’ cridibility.
Consistency of your statement is very important. If you are telling the truth, no matter how many times you are asked, your answers and statements will never change because it is the truth and you are not pressured in memorizing the detail. A meticulous cross examination would never stress a credible witness. Though some witness may feel scared, but telling the truth and what he really knows is not difficult even if he is stressed.
“kung ngsasabi ka ng totoo, hindi pabagobago ang mga sinasabi mo dahil galling yan sa puso. Kung paibaiba sinasabi mo, hindi kapanipaniwala yan aksi parang may nagcocoach sayo” Sen. Manny Pacquiao
Now who is credible? One witness with different stories, or the many witnesses but tells the same story?
This is just a mere opinion of the author…