Decision 11 G.R. No. 229862 This Court finds no reason to disturb the findings of the trial court and the Court of Appeals. In People v. Quintos: 71 The observance of the witnesses' demeanor during an oral direct examination, cross-examination, and during the entire period that he or she is present during trial is indispensable especially in rape cases because it helps establish the moral conviction that an accused is guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime charged. Trial provides judges with the opportunity to detect, consciously or unconsciously, observable cues and microexpressions that could, more than the words said and taken as a whole, suggest sincerity or betray lies and ill will. These important aspects can never be reflected or reproduced in documents and objects used as evidence. Hence, "[t]he evaluation of the witnesses' credibility is a matter best left to the trial court because it has the opportunity to observe the witnesses and their demeanor during the trial. Thus, the Court accords great respect to the trial court's findings," more so when the Court of Appeals affirmed such findings. 72 (Citations omitted) There is also no ment m accused-appellant's argument that force, intimidation, threat, fraud, or grave abuse of authority was not present. In People v. Gacusan, 73 this Court reiterated that "[t]he abuse of moral influence is the intimidation required in rape committed by the common-law father of a minor. " 74 As to the inclusion of the word "statutory" in the dispositive portion of the trial court Judgment, this Court holds that it was erroneously added by the trial court judge. In People v. Dalan: 75 The gravamen of the offense of statutory rape, as provided for in Article 266-A, paragraph 1 (d) of the Revised Penal Code, as amended, is the carnal knowledge of a woman below 12 years old. To convict an accused of the crime of statutory rape, the prosecution must prove: first, the age of the complainant; second, the identity of the accused; and last but not the least, the carnal knowledge between the accused and the complainant. 76 (Citation omitted) Here, the Information against accused-appellant did not allege AAA to be below 12 years old, but 14 years old, when the crime was committed upon her. The trial court even held that without documentary or testimonial 71 72 73 74 75 76 746 Phil. 809 (2014) [Per J. Leone11, Second Division]. Id. at 819-820. 809 Phil. 773 (2017) [Per J. Leonen, Second Division]. Id. at 774. 736 Phil. 298 (2014) [Per J. Brion, Second Division]. Id. at 303. /