To stress, there is no dispute that the victim, AAA, was 11 years old at the time of the commission of the crimes. More importantly, based on this Court’s assessment of the records and the evidence, Eulalio was guilty of the crimes being, imputed against him. It was satisfactorily proved that he had carnal knowledge of the victim, AAA, by employing threats and intimidation in order to achieve his reprehensible desires. It was also proved beyond doubt that through force and intimidation, he committed acts of lasciviousness on AAA by lying on top of her and kissing her on the lips. The clear, candid, and concise manner in which the commission of the felonies were described especially during the testimony of AAA ultimately confirmed that Eulalio was guilty beyond reasonable doubt for both crimes. Besides, "[i]t is settled jurisprudence that testimonies of child victims are given full weight and credit, because when a woman, more so if she is a minor, says that she has been raped, she says in effect all that is necessary to show that rape was committed. Youth and immaturity are generally badges of truth and sincerity."[36] Moreover, We held in People v. Macapagal[37]that: In cases of offended parties who are young and immature girls, there is considerable receptivity on the part of the courts to lend credence to their testimonies, considering not only their relative vulnerability, but also the shame and embarrassment to which such a grueling experience as a court trial, where they are called upon to lay bare what perhaps should be shrouded in secrecy, did expose them to. Indeed, no woman, much less a child, would willingly submit herself to the rigors, the humiliation and the stigma attendant upon the prosecution of rape, if she were not motivated by an earnest desire to put the culprit behind bars. Hence, BBB's testimony is entitled to full faith and credence. (citations omitted) Indeed, AAA's positive and categorical testimony, together with her father's testimony, should be given credence especially since Eulalio did not even bother to raise any defense at all.[38] In view of this, this Court emphasizes that "a young girl's revelation that she had been raped, coupled with her voluntary submission to medical examination and willingness to undergo public trial where she could be compelled to give out the details of an assault on her dignity, cannot be so easily dismissed as mere concoction."[39] In like manner, "[j]urisprudence is replete with cases where the Court ruled that questions on the credibility of witnesses should best be addressed to the trial court because of its unique position to observe that elusive and incommunicable evidence of the witnesses' deportment on the stand while testifying which is denied to the appellate courts."[40] Ergo, based on Our evaluation, the testimonies of the