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.