weight to the testimony of a young rape victim.[53] Records will reveal that the accused-appellant never claimed that it was improbable for him to have carnal knowledge of AAA because he was somewhere else when the offense was committed; and that he was so far away that it was not possible for him to have been physically present at the place of the crime or at its immediate vicinity at the time of its commission.[54] Instead, the accused-appellant insisted on the implausibility of him having carnal knowledge of AAA because he had earlier filed a complaint against BBB, EEE, and Reyes for their alleged abuse of AAA. Accusedappellant's defense, to stress, did not find any meaning to the resolution of the present charge against him. His defense easily crumbled when evaluated against the positive identification of AAA and her credible and forthright testimony. In a last-ditch effort to exculpate himself from liability, the accused-appellant ineffectually tried to make an issue on the findings of Dr. Baluyot which he claimed did not suggest that sexual abuse had taken place. He contended that it would be hard to conceive that a seven-year-old child would not sustain any injury on her perineum if she was sexually abused. Furthermore, there was nothing in Dr. Baluyot's testimony that AAA was already in a non-virgin state.[55] Jurisprudence is not wanting on this particular issue raised by the accused-appellant. Indeed, the legal teaching consistently upheld by the Court is that "[p]roof of hymenal laceration is not an element of rape. An intact hymen does not negate a finding that the victim was raped. Penetration of the penis by entry into the lips of the vagina, even without laceration of the hymen, is enough to constitute rape, and even the briefest of contact is deemed rape." [56] Dr. Baluyot's finding that there was "penetrating trauma" on AAA's genitalia supported AAA's credible testimony that she was raped by the accused-appellant. Under Art. 266-B of R.A. No. 8353, the penalty of death shall be imposed if the victim of the rape is under eighteen (18) years of age and the offender is a parent. However, with the effectivity of R.A. No. 9346, [57] the penalty of reclusion perpetua without eligibility for parole, instead of death, shall be imposed. Following the Court's decision in People v. Jugueta,[58] the Court modifies the award of damages to AAA and thus holds the accused-appellant liable for the following: civil indemnity of P100,000.00; moral damages of P100,000.00; and exemplary damages of P100,000.00. The accused-appellant shall further pay interest at six percent (6%) per annum on the civil indemnity and the moral and exemplary damages reckoned from the finality of this decision until full payment.[59] WHEREFORE, the appeal is DISMISSED. The assailed Decision of the Court of Appeals finding the accusedappellant Ricardo Tanglao y Egana GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt of Rape under Art. 266-A of R.A. No. 8353 is hereby AFFIRMED with MODIFICATION. He is sentenced to suffer the penalty of reclusion perpetua without eligibility for parole and is ORDERED to pay AAA civil indemnity of P100,000.00; moral damages of P100,000.00; and exemplary damages of P100,000.00; with interest at the rate of six percent (6%) per annum reckoned from the finality of this Decision until full payment. SO ORDERED. Velasco, Jr., (Chairperson), Bersamin, Leonen, and Gesmundo, JJ., concur. July 11, 2018 NOTICE OF JUDGMENT Sirs / Mesdames: Please take notice that on June 13, 2018 a Decision, copy attached hereto, was rendered by the Supreme Court in the above-entitled case, the original of which was received by this Office on July 11, 2018 at 10:37 a.m.