argues that there is not enough evidence to support such accusation. BBB did not testify and neither her sworn statement was formally offered in evidence to support the charge for acts of lasciviousness. In this case, the evidence adduced by the prosecution is insufficient to substantiate the charge of acts of lasciviousness against the accused-appellant. The basis of the complaint for acts of lasciviousness is the sworn statement of BBB to the effect that the accused-appellant likewise molested her by mashing her breast and touching her private part. However, she was not presented to testify. While AAA claims that she personally saw the accused touching the private parts of BBB, there was no testimony to the effect that such lascivious acts were without the consent or against the will of BBB.11 Issues In this appeal, the petitioner posits that the CA's decision was not in accord with law or with jurisprudence, particularly: ChanRoblesVirtualawl ibra ry I. In giving credence to the incredulous and unbelievable testimony of the alleged victim; and II. In convicting the accused notwithstanding the failure of the prosecution to prove the guilt of the petitioner beyond reasonable doubt. Anent the first issue, the petitioner assails the behavior and credibility of AAA. He argues that AAA still continued working for him and his wife until December 30, 1994 despite the alleged attempted rape in the early morning of December 21, 1994, thereby belying his commission of the crime against her; that he could not have undressed her without rousing her if she had gone to sleep only an hour before, because her bra was locked at her back; that her testimony about his having been on top of her for nearly an hour while they struggled was also inconceivable unless she either consented to his act and yielded to his lust, or the incident did not happen at all, being the product only of her fertile imagination; that the record does not indicate if he himself was also naked, or that his penis was poised to penetrate her; and that she and her mother demanded from him P80,000.00 as settlement, under threat that she would file a case against him.12 On the second issue, the petitioner assails the glaring inconsistencies in the testimony of AAA that cast doubt on her veracity. Ruling of the Court The appeal is partly meritorious. In an appeal under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court,13 the Court reviews only questions of law. No review of the findings of fact by the CA is involved. As a consequence of this