therefore, that there was no showing that the witnesses for the prosecution had ill motives to testify against accusedappellant, their testimonies should be accorded full faith and credence. [41] Significantly, the day after the accused-appellant had carnal knowledge of her, AAA informed BBB of what had happened to her. AAA and BBB immediately proceeded to the police station to report the incident and to execute their respective statements. These facts persuasively confirm that AAA did not have the luxury of time to fabricate a rape story.[42] What makes the case against the accused-appellant stronger were the medical findings on AAA. According to Dr. Baluyot, the photographs[43] of AAA's genitalia validated that she was sexually abused. [44] Likewise, Dr. Baluyot's report[45] indicated that her impression with regard to her examination of AAA's genitalia was "suggestive of blunt force or penetrating trauma." On the other hand, Dr. Leynes reported in her psychiatric evaluation [46] that the chief complaint on AAA was that "kinakagat niya ang sarili niya" (she bites herself) which is a symptom of a child sexually abused. Dr. Leynes' psychiatric diagnosis of AAA showed she was a victim of sexual abuse who had problems with her primary support group, i.e., her parents.[47] These medico-legal findings bolster the prosecution's testimonial evidence. Together, these pieces of evidence produce a moral certainty that the accused-appellant indeed raped the victim.[48] Jurisprudence has trenchantly maintained that when the issue of credibility of witnesses is presented before the Court, certain guidelines should be followed, viz: 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. 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. And third, the rule is even more stringently applied if the CA concurred with the RTC. [49] The Court has stringently reviewed the records of this case but found nothing that would support a conclusion that the findings of the RTC and the CA were arrived at arbitrarily, or that significant facts or circumstances were overlooked, misapprehended or misappreciated that, if properly considered, would have affected the outcome of this case. The defense presented by the accused-appellant was inherently weak. It must be stressed that both the RTC and the CA found AAA's testimony to be credible, which further placed the onus upon the accused-appellant to present clear and persuasive reasons to convince the Court to reverse their unanimous determination of her credibility as a witness in order to resolve the appeal his way. [50] The accusedappellant miserably failed to discharge his burden. The accused-appellant primarily anchored his defense on the assertion that AAA could not have been truthful in her narration of what took place on 14 September 2001, because she failed to state that prior to that incident she and the accused-appellant had gone to the NBI to complain about BBB, EEE, and Reyes. He insisted that he could not have concocted this story as this was supported by documentary evidence; that it would be preposterous for him to file a complaint before the NBI to cover up a crime he intends to commit afterwards.[51] The accused-appellant's defense has no merit. Noteworthily, the incident in this case took place on 14 September 2001. On the other hand, it can be gathered from the accused-appellant's documentary evidence that the incident subject of his complaint before the NBI allegedly took place on 20 August 2001; thus, his complaint was inconsequential to AAA's charge against him for rape. Even granting that there was truth to the accused-appellant's complaint before the NBI that BBB, EEE, and Reyes abused AAA, this however, does not destroy the very glaring truth substantiated by the records of this case that the accused-appellant had carnal knowledge of AAA on 14 September 2001. The revelation of an innocent child whose chastity was abused deserves full credence.[52] Further, in cases of incestuous rape, the Court usually gives more