The Court is guided by the following jurisprudence when confronted with the issue of credibility of witnesses on appeal:
First, the Court gives the highest respect to the RTC’s evaluation of the testimony of the witnesses, considering its unique position in directly observing the demeanor of a witness on the stand. From its vantage point, the trial court is in the best position to determine the truthfulness of witnesses.[10]
Second, absent any substantial reason which would justify the reversal of the RTC’s assessments and conclusions, the reviewing court is generally bound by the lower court’s findings, particularly when no significant facts and circumstances, affecting the outcome of the case, are shown to have been overlooked or disregarded.[11]
And third, the rule is even more stringently applied if the CA concurred with the RTC.[12]
In this case, both the RTC and the CA found AAA and her testimony credible. Our own independent examination of the records leads us to arrive at the same conclusion. AAA’s testimony relating to the identity of the appellant as the perpetrator was firm and categorical. Her testimony on the details of the rape which established all its elements – namely, the carnal knowledge, the force and intimidation employed by the appellant, and AAA’s young age – was clear and unequivocal.[13] AAA’s credibility is further strengthened by her clear lack of ill-motive to falsify.
The inconsistencies found in AAA’s testimony did not discredit her credibility. The pointed inconsistencies - whether AAA’s lower garments were first removed before she was tied up - are too trivial in character and have no bearing in the determination of the appellant’s guilt or innocence. The sequential order of the acts which immediately preceded the commission of the sexual assault by the appellant did not negate AAA’s testimony on the material details of the rape. We note, too, that AAA’s testimony was corroborated by physical evidence.
Similarly, the appellant’s imputation that another person might have committed the crime was not supported by the evidence on record. What is clear is AAA’s unwavering identification of the appellant as the perpetrator of the rape. In addition, AAA denied that a person known as “Pogi” was her rapist. She also explained that the notion that one “Pogi” raped her was merely concocted by the mother of the minor co-accused.
x x x."
