ANTONIO v CA

 CARLITO ANTONIO and SEVERINO ANTONIO are the brothers-in-law of the victim, Gonzalo Gutierrez, the
latter being the husband of accused' elder sister, Mrs. Priscilla Antonio-Gutierrez
 Jaime Robles, a candidate for councilor but lost, was in Barangay Wawa, Tangos, Navotas, Metro Manila, on
a house to house visit to thank people or voters who supported him in the local election
 Gonzalo Gutierrez arrived in the place on his way to their residence nearby. Reynaldo followed his father.
Suddenly Carlito Antonio, . . . appeared from behind of the latter, and at close range fired at him in the back.
 Severino Antonio, brother of Carlito Antonio, and one Oryo, held him by the two arms and dragged him
across the street near the gate of the Abalos compound. Oryo held a knife. Both Severino Antonio and Oryo
forced Gonzalo to kneel down, and while the latter was in that position, Carlito Antonio, grabbing Gonzalo's
head by the hair, poked a pistol on his left temple, Gonzalo pleaded for forgiveness and that he be brought
to the hospital. To the plea of Gonzalo, Carlito replied that he must die now, and fired his gun at the head of
Gonzalo.
 Not knowing how to file the case, Reynaldo did not go to the police headquarters not until April 22, 1988,
when he gave his written statement to PFC. Manolo Rodriguez narrating how his father, Gonzalo, was shot
and killed by Carlito Antonio, appellant Severino Antonio, one Oryo and still another person, and how the
four hatched the plan at about noontime at the seashore which he (Reynaldo) overheard when he passed
by.
 For the defense, Carlito Antonio averred that on the day the incident happened, he left his house at around
10:00 a.m. to go to the Magsaysay Lines at T.M. Kalaw St., Manila, in connection with his job application as
a seaman. He stayed in that office until 4:00 p.m. of that day. After that, he proceeded to his aunt Clarita
Guevarra and arrived there at 5:30 p.m. There he saw a child of her cousin named Vener. He stayed there
up to 10:00 p.m. as he was exchanging stories with her aunt. The accused-appellant
also presented two (2) witnesses in the person of Mrs. Filomena Antonio Besido and Mrs. Clarita Guevarra
which substantially corroborated his testimony.
 They both assail the trial court for giving more weight to the testimony of the prosecution witnesses despite
certain errors, inconsistencies and contradictions in their declarations
 Errorless testimonies cannot be expected especially when a witness is recounting details of a harrowing
experience and as long as the mass of testimony jibes on material points, the slight clashing statements
33

dilute neither the witnesses' credibility nor the veracity of their testimony. Such inconsistencies on minor
details would even enhance credibility as these discrepancies indicate that the responses are honest and
unrehearsed. 34

 We find that the positive testimony of eyewitnesses, like Gutierrez and Robles, has a greater probative value
than the hypothetical statements made by a witness who was not even present at the locus criminis, like Dr.
Dizon.
 It is undisputed jurisprudential rule that, for the defense of alibi to prosper, the accused must prove not only
that he was at some other place at the time the crime was committed but that it was physically impossible for
him to be at the locus criminis at the time of the alleged crime. This the appellant failed to prove. In the
45

instant case, the herein accused-appellant and petitioner was definitely identified and established as having
been in the Antonio compound at about 6:00 P.M. of January 20, 1988 by no less than their elder sister,
Priscilla A. Gutierrez. Moreover, Carlito Antonio was positively identified by prosecution witnesses
48

Reynaldo Gutierrez and Jaime Robles as the one who shot and killed, together with co-accused Severino
Antonio and a certain Oryo, the victim Gonzalo Gutierrez on January 20, 1988 at Wawa, Navotas, Metro
Manila.

PP v ANSELMO BERONDO
 Herbert Nietes suddenly heard a gunshot from nearby. After about five minutes, he saw accused-appellant,
Julie Tubigon, and Jesus Sudario, each holding a knife, walk towards the road and take turns in stabbing a
person who was already slumped on the ground. The next day, he learned that the person stabbed was
Genaro Laguna. He later testified that he did not reveal what he had witnessed to anyone because he was
afraid of getting involved.3At about the same time, Pedro Tero, who was also walking along the road towards
Puntian, saw Tubigon shoot Laguna. Two years after the incident, Nietes and Tero admitted to Dolores,
Laguna’s widow, that they had witnessed the crime.
 In his defense, accused-appellant denied any involvement in the killing of Laguna. He claimed that in the
evening of February 13, 1999, he was with his wife and daughter watching the activities during the Araw ng
New Danao (New Danao Day) at the Poblacion, New Danao, Sinaysayan. When the activities ended at
about two o’clock in the morning of the next day, they went home together. Hours later, Geno Laguna, the
victim’s cousin, told him about the incident and together they proceeded to the place where the victim’s body
was found. Further, he alleged that prosecution witness Nietes was his daughter’s former sweetheart. Their
relationship became unfriendly after Nietes acted rudely against accused-appellant’s daughter.

 Accused-appellant’s guilt is anchored only on the testimony of Nietes. Accused-appellant, however, faults
Nietes for belatedly reporting the identities of the assailants. He claims that the delay impaired Niete’s
credibility; thus, the latter’s testimony should be disregarded.
  We disagree. Delay in revealing the identity of the perpetrators of a crime does not necessarily impair the
credibility of a witness, especially where sufficient explanation is given. 9 No standard form of behavior can
be expected from people who had witnessed a strange or frightful experience. 10 Jurisprudence recognizes
that witnesses are naturally reluctant to volunteer information about a criminal case or are unwilling to be
involved in criminal investigations because of varied reasons. Some fear for their lives and that of their
family;11 while others shy away when those involved in the crime are their relatives 12 or townmates.13 And
where there is delay, it is more important to consider the reason for the delay, which must be sufficient or
well-grounded, and not the length of delay.14

 In this case, although it took Nietes more than two years to report the identity of the assailants, such delay
was sufficiently explained. Nietes stated that he feared for his life because the three accused also lived in
the same town and the incident was the first killing in their area. He only had the courage to reveal to
1avvphi1

Dolores what he had witnessed because his conscience bothered him.

 Despite the delay in reporting the identities of the malefactors, Nietes testified in a categorical,
straightforward, and spontaneous manner, and remained consistent even under grueling cross-examination.
Such bears the marks of a credible witness.15

EQUITABLE CARDNETWORK, INC., Petitioner,

vs.
JOSEFA BORROMEO CAPISTRANO, Respondent.

 Respondent applied for membership with MYC and as a result got a credit card with ECI.
Upon payment by the alleged daughter of respondent Redulla on credit card, check
bounced. Respondent failed to settle her bill. Respondednt denied applying MYC
membership and ECI credit card and that Redulla was not her daughter and never had she
authorized anyone to claim a credit card for her. On trial, RTC ruled against respondent as
there was no specific denial on the documents regarding the credit card and membership.
Mrs. Capistrano denied these allegations "for lack of knowledge" as to their truth. This
mode of denial is by itself obviously ineffectual since a person must surely know if he
applied for a credit card or not, like a person must know if he is married or not. He must
also know if he used the card and if he did not pay the card company for his purchases. A
person’s denial for lack of knowledge of things that by their nature he ought to know is not
an acceptable denial. But this inadequacy was cured by her quick assertion that she was
also denying the allegations regarding those actionable documents "for the reasons as
stated in her special and affirmative defenses."

 Neither the RTC nor the CA can ignore Mrs. Capistrano’s above additional reasons denying ECI’s
allegations regarding its actionable documents. Such reasons form part of her answer. Parenthetically, it
seems that, when Mrs. Capistrano denied the transactions with ECI "for lack of knowledge," it was her way
of saying that such transactions took place without her knowing. And, since Mrs. Capistrano in fact verified
her claim that she had no part in those transactions, she in effect denied under oath the genuineness and
due execution of the documents supporting them. For this reason, she is not barred from introducing
evidence that those documents were forged.

 Two. Here, apart from presenting an officer who identified its documents, ECI presented no other evidence
to support its claim that Mrs. Capistrano did business with it. On the other hand, the evidence for the
defense shows that it was not likely for Mrs. Capistrano to have applied for a credit card since she was
already 81 years old, weak, bedridden, and suffering from senility at the time in question. What is more, she
16

had been staying in Cagayan de Oro under the care of his son Mario; whereas she made the alleged cash
advances and purchases using the credit card in different malls in Cebu City, Bohol, and Muntinlupa City. 17

 Further, as the CA found, Mrs. Capistrano’s specimen signatures on a Deed of Sale, an Extra-judicial
18

Settlement of Estate of Deceased Person, a Waiver of Rights, and a handwritten note, executed at about
19 20 21

the time in question, clearly varied from the signatures found on ECI’s documents. The testimony of a
22

handwriting expert, while useful, is not indispensable in examining or comparing handwritings or

signatures. The matter here is not too technical as to preclude the CA from examining the signatures and
23

ruling on whether or not they are forgeries. The Court finds no reason to take exception from the CA’s
finding.

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, appellee,

vs.
TERESA CORPUZ y VARGAS and MARCY SANTOS y JAVIER, appellants.
 Drugs case. Teresa’s version. Manhihilot. Went to Drug Store. Introduced to Lt. Cortez. Man
suddenly froma tricycle gave packet to Josie. Suddenly shooting spree ensued. Accused
was handcuffed and brought to police station. She denied when shown the packets.
 Marcy’s version. On his way home, he was requested by Teresa to accompany to a drug
store. upon bringing Teresa;s son home, he was suddenly arrested and forced to admit
carrying the wrapped thing.

 Without doubt, the prosecution was able to sufficiently establish the elements of illegal sale of dangerous
drugs23 and to prove the charge of illegal sale of shabu.24 The clear, straightforward and consistent
testimonies of PO3 Colaler and other members of the entrapment team were concurrent on material points,
replete with relevant details, and sufficiently supportive of the RTC’s conclusions. 25 Absent any persuasive
evidence showing that they testified falsely, the logical conclusion is that no such improper motive existed,
and that their testimonies are worthy of full faith and credit. 26

 Further, the collective testimonies of these prosecution witnesses were corroborated by the physical
evidence on record as contained in Chemistry Report No. D-0011-99. 27 Upon laboratory examination, the
white crystalline substance found in appellants’ possession, was positively identified as methamphetamine
hydrochloride

 While appellants allege that the buy-bust operation was tainted with abuse, they have not advanced any
reason why the lower court should have disbelieved the testimony of PO3 Colaler. 29 Except for their self-
serving statements, they have likewise failed to present evidence to establish that the police operation was
tainted with abuse of authority.
 The defense of denial, like alibi, is invariably viewed with disfavor by courts, because it can easily be
concocted. It is a common and standard defense ploy in most prosecutions for violations of the Dangerous
Drugs Act.38 As has been held, denial is a weak form of defense, particularly when it is not substantiated by
clear and convincing evidence. Evidently, the defense of denial resorted by appellants is weakened by their
conflicting and irreconcilable statements on the witness stand. 45 As correctly pointed out by the RTC, it is
difficult to understand why they presented two different stories about the events prior to their apprehension,
when they had a common stand on the issue. 46 Verily, their denial cannot prevail over the prosecution
witnesses’ positive testimonies.

 Appellants further claim that there were inconsistencies in the testimonies of the police officers, who were
the principal prosecution witnesses.48There were no such material inconsistencies. Rather, those testimonies
complemented one another in giving a complete picture of how the illegal sale of the prohibited drug had
transpired, and how it led to appellants’ apprehension in flagrante delicto. 49 At the very least, whatever
inconsistencies there were in PO3 Colaler’s testimony were minor and did not detract from the veracity and
the weight of the prosecution evidence.