3. Appellant Raul Macapagal is further ordered to pay the private offended party interest on all damages awarded at the legal rate of Six Percent (6%) per annum until the same are fully paid. SO ORDERED.[10] The CA agreed with the RTC that BBB's testimony is credible, as she was firm and unwavering in her narration of her traumatic experience during the rape incidents perpetrated by her own father. The CA also ruled that the medical report and the testimony of the medico-legal officer on BBB's deep and healed hymenal lacerations are consistent with BBB's allegations of rape against appellant. The CA observed that prior to the last rape incident, BBB had been victimized by appellant to countless sexual abuses which started in 1998, which explains the healed lacerations in BBB's genitals. The CA noted that BBB initially preferred to conceal her dishonor because the culprit was her own flesh and blood, who even threatened her life should she report the rape incidents to anyone. With respect to the inconsistencies pointed out by appellant, the CA ruled that they even tend to bolster her credibility as they are proofs of an unrehearsed testimony. Anent the claim that BBB could have avoided the rape incident by finding solace in a safe house or in a government institution, the CA stressed that BBB could hardly be expected to know what to do under such circumstances as she was only 11 years old when the first rape incident took place. The CA also ruled that it is unnatural for grandparents to use their grandchild in a scheme of malice against her own father, not to mention that it will subject the child to embarrassment and stigma. Dissatisfied with the CA Decision, appellant filed a notice of appeal. The appeal is devoid of merit. After a careful review of the records, the Court finds no reason to reverse the RTC's judgment of conviction, but a modification of the penalty imposed, the damages awarded, and the nomenclature of the offense committed, are in order. In Criminal Case No. RTC-2003-0294, appellant should be held liable for acts of lasciviousness under Art. 336[11] of the RPC, in relation to Section(b), Art. III of R.A. No. 7610[12] instead of rape through sexual assault under Art. 266-A, paragraph 2 of the RPC.[13] In Dimakuta v. People,[14] the Court stressed that in instances where the lascivious conduct is covered by the definition under R.A. No. 7610, where the penalty is reclusion temporal medium, and the act is likewise covered by sexual assault under Art. 266-A, paragraph 2 of the RPC, which is punishable by prision mayor, the offender should be liable for violation of Section 5 (b), Art. III of R.A.