TIME HONORED PRINCIPLE: GENERALLY APPELLATE COURTS WILL NOT DISTURB FINDINGS OF TRIAL COURT IN MATTERS OF CREDIBILITY OF WITNESSES (G.R. Nos. 134628-3

‘After a thorough review of the records, we fail to discern any material contradiction in the assertion of Nerissa that she was raped on separate occasions by accused-appellant. As noted by the trial court, Nerissa did not waver in her testimony even under the rigorous cross-examination by the defense counsel. Hence, there is no cogent reason to deviate from the time-honored legal principle that when the issue is one of credibility of witnesses, appellate courts will not disturb the findings of the trial court. The trial judge is in the best position to detect that sometimes thin line between fact and prevarication that will determine the guilt or innocence of the accused. That line may not be discernible from a mere reading of the impersonal record by the reviewing court. The record will not reveal those tell-tale signs that will affirm the truth or expose the contrivance, like the angry flush of an insisted assertion or the sudden pallor of a discovered lie or the tremulous mutter of a reluctant answer or the forthright tone of a ready reply. The record will not show if the eyes have darted in evasion or looked down in confession or gazed steadily with a serenity that has nothing to distort or conceal. The records will not show if tears were shed in anger, or in shame, or in remembered pain, or in feigned innocence. Only the judge trying the case can see all these and on the basis of his observations arrive at an informed and reasoned verdict.’