LORETO LUCIANO DE SALAS vs. SAN MIGUEL BREWERY CAR (Page-4)

A - If I may qualify, Your Honor, I agree with the Court that you
cannot make all bottles identical. In fact, it is a physical impossibility, but
you ean make all bottles be better than a minimum standard; You ean do
that." T.S.N., p. 207, Maglalang, 9 February 1960;

true the defendant pointed out in its brief an apparent contradiction in the testimony
of Loreto in page 57 of the transcript of Stenographer Maglalang when she said on crossexamination:

"I was not getting the ice, sir, and there was nobody buying halohalo.'"
but this inconsistency was explained in her following answer:

"Because of the long lapse of time, Sir, I do not remember very well
now whether that certain person I mentioned was buying halo-halo of soft
drinks." T.S.N. id.;

and if it is considered that Loreto testified for the first time on August 23, 1954, and
submitted to cross-examination almost five years afterwards, on February 12, 1959, the
explanation can easily be accepted, especially when it is seen that in the course of the
subsequent cross-examination, which seems to have recorded the incident more clearly and
related to the Court by demonstrating how the cooler was opened as read in the following
subsequent transcript:

(The witness demonstrated by holding with her right hand the lid one
foot wide and bowing, with her face toward the opening of the cooler and her
eyes about eight inches from the edge of the lid of the cooler) T.S.N. 59-63,
Maglalang, 12 February 1959;

likewise truly, the brief of the appellee contended that the narration of Loreto with
regard to the explosion that the lower part of the bottle flew from the cooler, and which is
Exhibit D, T.S.N., p. 10, August 23, 1954, the appellee contends that this statement is
incredible because:

"No demonstration is necessary to prove that if a standing bottle
should spontaneously explode at all, it is the top portion and not the bottom
that is thrown up; "Brief, p. 6;

but this observation ignores that the statement clearly shows that the flooring of the
cooler is of a material which is necessarily harder, consequently, the glass of the bottle must
be thrown and blown up; the observation of the Lower Court and the argument of the
appellee notwithstanding, the Court is more inclined to believe that the incident as narrated
by Loreto and her witnesses, was a spontaneous explosion of the bottle of Pale Pilsen, and