Is inconsistent statements by a witness admissible for the purpose of attacking the credibility of the witness?

Appellant contends that Evidence Code section 1294 was not intended to supplant the rule that prior inconsistent statements of hearsay declarants are admissible only for impeachment and not for their truth. Evidence Code section 1202, with italics added, provides that: "Evidence of a statement or other conduct by a declarant that is inconsistent with a statement by such declarant received in evidence as hearsay evidence is not inadmissible for the purpose of attacking the credibility of the declarant though he is not given and has not had an opportunity to explain or to deny such inconsistent statement or other conduct." The Comment to this section, cited with approval in People v. Cudjo, supra, 6 Cal.4th at p. 616, 25 Cal.Rptr.2d 390, 863 P.2d 635, states: "Section 1235 provides that evidence of inconsistent statements made by a trial witness may be admitted to prove the truth of the matter stated. No similar exception to the hearsay rule is applicable to a hearsay declarant's inconsistent statements that are admitted under Section 1202. Hence, the hearsay rule prohibits any such statement from being used to prove the truth of the matter stated. If the declarant is not a witness and is not subject to cross-examination upon the subject matter of his statements, there is no sufficient guarantee of the trustworthiness of the statements he has made out of court to warrant their reception as substantive evidence unless they fall within some recognized exception to the hearsay rule."