People vs Pabalan : 115350 : September 30, 1996 : J Regalado : Secon... http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1996/sept1996/115350.htm Secondly, appellant faults the lower court for giving credence to the testimony of complainant Garcia. He claims that aside from the testimony of Garcia, there is no other evidence presented by the prosecution to show that there was a recruitment agreement between them and that money was received by appellant. His alleged companion in Saipan, Aquilino [20] Espino, was not even presented to corroborate his story. The fact that no additional evidence was presented, aside from the testimony of Garcia, will not militate against his credibility. Corroborative evidence is necessary only when there are reasons to warrant the suspicion that the witness falsified the truth or that his observations are [21] Complainant Garcias straightforward and clear testimony renders unnecessary the incorrect. presentation of documents and other evidence to prove that appellant was the one who engaged him to work abroad. Neither will the failure of the prosecution to present Espino diminish the credibility of Garcia. It has been held that the non-presentation of certain witnesses by the prosecution is not a plausible defense and the matter of whom to present as witnesses for the prosecution lies in the [22] sound discretion of the prosecutor handling the case. Thus no adverse inference against the case of the People can be deduced from the failure of the prosecution to present Espino. Besides, if the prosecution had opted to present Espino, his testimony would merely be [23] corroborative and can thus be dispensed with. Appellant further attacks the credibility of Garcia by theorizing that it was preposterous to buy the latters airplane ticket on March 29, 1993 when, according to his own testimony, he met [24] appellant only on April 3, 1993. It is, however, well settled that minor discrepancies in the [25] testimony of a prosecution witness do not affect his credibility. The alleged inconsistencies are too insignificant to adversely affect the testimony of witness Garcia. Given the natural frailties of the human mind and its incapacity to assimilate all material details of a given incident, slight inconsistencies and variances in the declarations of a witness [26] hardly weaken their probative value. Lastly, appellant asserts that his version should have been believed by the court below since [27] the fact that complainants reached Japan indicates that he did not recruit them. It will be observed therefrom that appellants arguments seeking to disprove the conclusion on illegal recruitment actually assail the stamp of confidence placed by the court a quo upon the testimonies of the prosecution witnesses. The best arbiter on the issue of the credibility of the prosecution witnesses and of appellant is the trial court. When the inquiry is one of credibility of witnesses, appellate courts will generally not disturb the findings of the trial court, considering that the latter is in a better position to decide the question, having heard the witnesses themselves and observed their deportment and manner of testifying during the trial, unless it plainly overlooked certain facts of substance and [28] value which, if considered, might affect the result of the case. After a thorough and painstaking review, the Court is satisfied that there is nothing in the records of these cases which signify that the trial court might have ignored or misappreciated substantial facts as would warrant a reversal of its findings and conclusions. All the witnesses for the prosecution categorically testified that it was appellant who promised them that he could arrange for and facilitate their employment abroad. We quote with approval the conclusion of the lower court that x x x the narration of the prosecution witnesses Henry Luciano, June Barrera and Manuel Garcia are the more believable story. Their testimonies 6 of 10 1/20/2016 1:00 PM