FACTS:

This case involves the appeal filed by petitioner Leticia I. Kummer challenging the decision of the Court of Appeals (CA) that affirmed the Regional Trial Court's (RTC) judgment finding her and her co-accused, Freiderich Johan I. Kummer, guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of homicide. The prosecution's evidence revealed that the petitioner's son, Johan, shot the victim, Jesus Mallo, Jr., twice using a gun after Mallo knocked on the petitioner's front door. The petitioner then used her own gun to shoot Mallo, hitting him in the back. After the shooting, the petitioner and her co-accused moved the victim's body away from the house. The following morning, the police informed the petitioner that Mallo had been found dead in front of her house. The petitioner denied the charges and claimed that she and her children were already asleep at the time of the incident. In 2000, the RTC found both the petitioner and Johan guilty based on the testimonies of prosecution's witnesses and the positive findings of gunpowder nitrates on their hands. Johan, who was a minor at the time, was released on recognizance and later left the country without notifying the court. Only the petitioner appealed the judgment of conviction with the CA, arguing that the RTC committed reversible errors. The CA rejected the petitioner's arguments and affirmed the RTC judgment. The petitioner raised the issue of whether the CA committed an error in affirming her conviction. The main issue in the case revolves around the credibility of the prosecution witnesses and the sufficiency of the prosecution's evidence.

ISSUES:

1. Whether the inconsistencies in the testimonies of the prosecution eyewitnesses affect their credibility.

2. Whether a judgment of conviction is rendered erroneous if the judge who heard the case is not the same judge who rendered the decision.

3. Whether motive is relevant in a case where the accused has been positively identified by an eyewitness.

4. Whether the witnesses' affidavits, which only stated that they heard the shooting and not that they witnessed it, affect their credibility.

5. Whether the alleged improbabilities and inconsistencies in the testimonies of the witnesses cast serious doubt on their reliability and credibility.

6. Whether the chemistry report showing a positive result of the paraffin test is a public document.

7. Whether the requirement for authentication applies to public documents.

8. Whether the chemistry report is admissible as evidence even if the forensic chemist who conducted the paraffin test was not presented as a witness.

9. Whether the presumption of regularity in favor of the forensic chemist applies.

10. Whether the positive finding of gunpowder residue in the paraffin test serves as corroborating evidence.

11. Whether a change in the date of the commission of a crime is a formal or substantial amendment to the complaint or information.

12. Whether an arraignment is necessary after a formal amendment to the complaint or information.

RULING:

1. The inconsistencies in the testimonies of the prosecution eyewitnesses do not affect their credibility. The Court has consistently held that minor and collateral inconsistencies between the testimony of a witness in open court and their statements in a sworn affidavit do not affect their credibility and the weight of their testimony, especially when these inconsistencies do not touch upon the commission of the crime itself. Such slight contradictions can even strengthen the credibility of the witnesses, as they show that their testimonies have not been rehearsed. The Court also acknowledges that affidavits are often incomplete and may not fully reflect the witness's actual knowledge of the events. Therefore, the court gives more weight to the testimony given in open court rather than the affidavits, as affidavits taken ex-parte are generally considered inferior to testimony given in court.

2. A judgment of conviction is not rendered erroneous solely because the judge who heard the case is not the same judge who rendered the decision. It is not necessary for the validity of a judgment that the judge who penned the decision actually heard the case in its entirety. The judge can base their ruling on the transcribed stenographic notes taken during the trial as the basis for their decision. As long as the judge, in deciding the case, completely bases their ruling on the records before them, the judgment is valid. The observation of witness demeanor is not necessary for the validity of the judgment.

3. Motive is irrelevant when the accused has been positively identified by an eyewitness. The prosecution does not need to prove the motive of the accused when the latter has been identified as the author of the crime.

4. The witnesses' affidavits that only stated they heard the shooting, and not that they witnessed it, do not automatically foreclose the possibility that they also saw the actual shooting. Details or additional facts stated in open court that serve to supplement the declarations made in the affidavit can be considered by the court.

5. Improbabilities and inconsistencies in the testimonies of witnesses do not necessarily cast serious doubt on their reliability and credibility. There is no absolute uniformity nor a fixed standard form of human behavior when one is confronted with an unusual, strange, startling, or frightful experience.

6. Yes, the chemistry report showing a positive result of the paraffin test is a public document.

7. No, the requirement for authentication does not apply to public documents.

8. Yes, the chemistry report is admissible as evidence even if the forensic chemist who conducted the paraffin test was not presented as a witness.

9. Yes, the presumption of regularity in favor of the forensic chemist applies.

10. Yes, the positive finding of gunpowder residue in the paraffin test serves as corroborating evidence.

11. A change in the date of the commission of a crime is considered a formal amendment to the complaint or information if it does not charge a different offense, alter the theory of prosecution, cause surprise or prejudice to the accused, or adversely affect the substantial rights of the accused.

12. An arraignment is not necessary after a formal amendment to the complaint or information because the purpose of arraignment, which is to inform the accused of the nature and cause of the accusation against him, has already been attained during the initial arraignment. Furthermore, a subsequent amendment that does not charge a new offense or alter the theory of prosecution does not come as a surprise to the accused.

PRINCIPLES:

• Inconsistencies between testimonies in open court and affidavits, referring only to minor and collateral matters, do not affect the credibility of witnesses and the weight of their testimony. Such inconsistencies can even strengthen the credibility of witnesses as they may be considered badges of truth rather than indicia of bad faith. Affidavits are often incomplete and do not fully reflect the witness's knowledge of the events.

• Affidavits taken ex-parte are generally considered inferior to testimony given in court, thus the latter prevails in cases of discrepancies between the two.

• A judgment of conviction is not rendered erroneous solely because the judge who heard the case is not the same judge who rendered the decision. It is sufficient that the judge bases their ruling completely on the records before them. The observation of witness demeanor is not necessary for the validity of the judgment.

• Motive is not necessary to prove when the accused has been positively identified as the perpetrator of the crime.

• Details or additional facts stated in open court that supplement the declarations made in the affidavit can be considered by the court.

• Improbabilities and inconsistencies in testimonies do not automatically discredit the witnesses' credibility. There is no standard human behavioral response when faced with an unusual or frightening experience.

• Public documents, such as chemistry reports, are admissible in court without further proof of their due execution and authenticity.

• Public documents do not require authentication and are admissible in evidence without further proof of their due execution and genuineness.

• Documents consisting of entries in public records made in the performance of a duty by a public officer are prima facie evidence of the facts stated therein.

• The presumption of regularity applies to the performance of one's duties unless facts are shown dictating a contrary conclusion.

• Positive finding of gunpowder residue in a paraffin test can serve as corroborating evidence in supporting eyewitness testimony.

• A mere change in the date of the commission of the crime, if the disparity of time is not great, is considered a formal amendment that would not prejudice the rights of the accused.

• The precise time of the commission of a crime is not an essential ingredient of the crimes of homicide.

• Procedural due process requires that the accused be arraigned to be fully informed of the reason for his indictment, the specific charges he is facing, and the corresponding penalty that could be imposed on him.

• An amendment to the complaint or information that does not charge a different offense, alter the theory of prosecution, cause surprise or prejudice to the accused, or adversely affect the substantial rights of the accused is considered a formal amendment.

• Arraignment is indispensable in bringing the accused to court and notifying him of the nature and cause of the accusations against him. However, arraignment is not necessary after a formal amendment to the complaint or information.