'• Decision - 5- G.R. No. 227363 Aggrieved, Tulagan invoked the same arguments he raised before the CA in assailing his conviction. He alleged that the appellate court erred in giving weight, and credence to the inconsistent testimony of AAA, and in sustaining his conviction despite the prosecution's failure to prove his guilt beyond reasonable doubt. To support his appeal, he argued that the testimony of AAA was fraught with inconsistencies and lapses which affected her credibility. Our Ruling The instant appeal has no merit. However, a modification of the nomenclature of th~ crime, the penalty imposed, and the damages awarded in Criminal Case No. SCC-6210 for sexual assault, and a reduction of the damages awarded in Criminal Case No. SCC-6211 for statutory rape, are in order. Factual findings of the trial court carry great weight and respect due to the unique opportunity afforded them to observe the witnesses when placed on the stand. Consequently, appellate courts will not overturn the factual findings of the trial court in the absence of facts or circumstances of weight and substance that would affect the result of the case. 6 Said rule finds an even more stringent application where the said findings are sustained by the CA, as in the instant case: Time and again, we have held that when it comes to the issue of credibility of the victim or the prosecution witnesses, the findings of the trial courts carry great weight and respect and, generally, the appellate courts will not overturn the said findings unless the trial court overlooked, misunderstood or, misapplied some facts or circumstances of weight and substance which will alter the assailed decision or affect the result of the case. This is so because trial courts are in the best position to ascertain and measure the sincerity and spontaneity of witnesses through their actual observation of the witnesses' manner of testifying, their demeanor and behavior in court. Trial judges enjoy the advantage of observing the witness' deportment and manner of testifying, her "furtive glance, blush of conscious shame, hesitation, flippant or sneering tone, calmness, sigh, or the scant or full realization of an oath" - all of which are useful aids for an accurate determination of a witness' honesty and sincerity. Trial judges, therefore, can better determine if such witnesses are telling the truth, being in the ideal position to weigh conflicting testimonies. Again, unless certain facts of substance and value were overlooked which, if considered, might affect the result of the case, its assessment must be respected, for it had the opportunity to observe the conduct and demeanor of the witnesses while testifying and detect if they were lying. The rule finds an even more . 6 People v. Gahi, 727 Phil. 642 (2014). Ct