That was during the examination. Rebustes narration of the incident under inquiry was straightforward, categorical and free from any serious contradiction. We find therefore no compelling reason to change the conclusion of the trial court on the credibility of Examiner Rebustes, on the one hand, and the non-reliability of the appellant. The plain denial by the appellant of the charges against her cannot outweigh the clear and credible testimony of Rebustes. And what is more, Rebustes, having no ill motive or reason to falsely impute a serious crime against the appellant, cannot be considered other than a credible witness.
Credence is accorded to the testimonies of prosecution witnesses who are law enforcers.
The law grants them the presumption of regularly performing their duty in the absence of convincing proof to the contrary. Costs against appellant. Melo, Vitug, Panganiban, and Gonzaga-Reyes, JJ., concur.