Moreover, this "inconsistency" refers only to a collateral matter and does not deviate from the fact that accused-appellant was positively and categorically identified as the perpetrator of the crime.  The "inconsistency" only bolsters the credibility of Lejano as it shows that his testimony was not rehearsed nor perjured.  Thus -

Inconsistencies in the testimonies of the prosecution witnesses with respect to minor details and collateral matters do not affect the substance of their declarations nor the veracity or weight of their testimony.  In fact, these minor inconsistencies enhance the credibility of the witnesses for they remove any suspicion that their testimonies were contrived or rehearsed.  In People v. Maglente [306 SCRA 546 (1999)], this Court ruled that inconsistencies in details which are irrelevant to the elements of the crime are not grounds for acquittal.^[5]

The defense maintains that Lejano is a perjured witness as he could not even state the exact date when his cousin died.  Again, this Court is not convinced.  Whatever seeming discrepancy there was in Lejano's testimony was not as irreconcilable nor material or relevant as to merit its complete disregard by the court.  The date when the victim died refers only to a collateral matter.  The established fact remains that accused-appellant stabbed the victim to death.