Decision - 14 - G.R. No. 234841 Section 3(a) of R.A. No. 7610, the term "children" refers to persons below eighteen (18) years of age or those over, but unable to fully take care of themselves or protect themselves from abuse, neglect, cruelty, exploitation or discrimination because of a physical or mental disability or condition. In view of the presence of all the elements of the crime, Manuel should be convicted of Lascivious Conduct under Section S(b ), Article III of R.A. No. 7610. As duly found by the trial court and affirmed by the appellate court, AAA positively and categorically stated that Manuel, her own biological father, inserted his finger into her vagina, and it was painful. She gave a direct and straightforward narration of her ordeal in his hands. In a long line of cases, this Court has given full weight and credit to the testimonies of child victims, considering that their youth and immaturity are generally badges of truth and sincerity. Indeed, leeway should be given to witnesses who are minors, especially when they are relating past incidents of abuse. 36 Manuel, however, insists that AAA clearly had motive to fabricate the charges against him because, as shown by the testimonies heard during trial, AAA was a disobedient child who would always leave the house without permission causing Manuel to reprimand her. She was also heavily influenced by BBB who openly despised their father. The Court is unconvinced. Settled is the rule that ill motives become inconsequential if there is an affirmative and credible declaration from the rape victim, which clearly establishes the liability of the accused. 37 As for Manuel's contention that the absence of any finding of hymenal lacerations, injuries, or other signs of sexual abuse during the medical examination of AAA undeniably proves his innocence, case law dictates that the medical report on AAA is only corroborative of the finding of rape. "The absence of fresh external signs or physical injuries on the complainant's body does not necessarily negate the commission of rape, hymenal laceration and like vaginal injuries not being x x x an element of the crime of rape. What is more, the foremost consideration in the prosecution of rape is the victim's testimony and not the findings of the medico-legal officer. In fact, a medical examination of the victim is not indispensable in a prosecution for rape; the victim's testimony alone, if credible, is sufficient to convict." 38 Indeed, "[w]hen the trial court's findings have been affirmed by the appellate court, said findings are generally binding upon the Court, unless there is a clear showing that they were reached arbitrarily or it appears from the records that certain facts of weight, substance, or value are overlooked, 36 37 38 People v. Caoili, supra note 21, at 139. Id. at 138. People v. Llanas, Jr., 636 Phil. 611, 624 (20 IO); citations omitted.