witnesses is within the province of the trial court.[23] All questions bearing on the credibility of witnesses are best addressed by the trial court by virtue of its unique position to observe the crucial and often incommunicable evidence of the witnesses' deportment while testifying, something which is denied to the appellate court because of the nature and function of its office.[24] The trial judge has the unique advantage of actually examining the real and testimonial evidence, particularly the demeanor of the witnesses.[25] Hence, the trial judge's assessment of the witnesses' testimonies and findings of fact are accorded great respect on appeal.[26] In the absence of any substantial reason to justify the reversal of the trial court's assessment and conclusion, like when no significant facts and circumstances are shown to have been overlooked or disregarded, the reviewing court is generally bound by the former's findings.[27] Moreover, it has been held that when a testimony is given in a candid and straightforward manner, there is no room for doubt that the witness is telling the truth.[28] Likewise, jurisprudence has consistently given full weight and credence to a child's testimonies as youth and immaturity are badges of truth and sincerity.[29] What is important in the instant case is that Michael and Jomie witnessed the unfolding of the crime and was able to positively identify accused-appellant as the culprit. Also, the fact that Michael and Jomie were just a few meters away from the victim and the accused-appellant, and that the crime was committed in broad daylight, bolster their testimonies as to the particular acts committed by accusedappellant and their identification of the latter as the perpetrator of the lascivious acts committed against the victim. On the other hand, accused-appellant failed to refute the testimonies of Michael and Jomie who categorically pointed to him as the person who fondled the victim's private organ. He also failed to attribute any improper motive to the child witnesses to falsely testify against him. There was no evidence to establish that Michael and Jomie harbored any ill-will against accused-appellant or that they had reasons to fabricate their testimony. In the absence of proof to the contrary, the presumption is that the witness was not moved by any ill-will and was untainted by bias, and thus, worthy of belief and credence.[30] Under these circumstances, the rule that where the prosecution eyewitnesses were familiar with both the victim and the accused, and where the locus criminis afforded good visibility, and where no improper motive can be attributed to the witnesses for testifying against the accused, then their version of the story deserves much weight, thus applies.[31] The Court is, therefore, convinced that accused-appellant's culpability for lascivious acts committed against the victim was duly established by the testimony of the child witnesses.