has pointed out that some of them have found the courage early on to publicly denounce the abuses they experienced, but still there were others who have opted to initially keep their harrowing ordeals to themselves and to just move on with their lives as if nothing had happened, until the limits of their tolerance were reached. Also, the immature and inexperienced could not be expected to measure up to the same standard of conduct and reaction that would be expected from adults whose maturity in age and experience could have brought them to stand up more quickly to their interest. Lastly, long silence and delay in reporting the crime of rape to the proper authorities have not always been considered as an indication of a false accusation.[15] Appellant's claim of ill motive on the part of private complainant AAA as the prime reason the latter has accused him of committing the crime is untenable. It is highly unthinkable for the victim to falsely accuse her father solely by reason of ill motives or grudge."[16] Furthermore, motives such as resentment, hatred or revenge have never swayed this Court from giving full credence to the testimony of a minor rape victim.[17] In People v. Manuel,[18] this Court ruled: Evidently, no woman, least of all a child, would concoct a story of defloration, allow examination of her private parts and subject herself to public trial or ridicule if she has not, in truth, been a victim of rape and impelled to seek justice for the wrong done to her being. It is settled jurisprudence that testimonies of child-victims are given full weight and credit, since when a woman or a girl-child says that she has been raped, she says in effect all that is necessary to show that rape was indeed committed. It must be remembered that as to appellant's defense of denial and alibi, bare assertions thereof cannot overcome the categorical testimony of the victim. Denial is an intrinsically weak defense which must be buttressed with strong evidence of non-culpability to merit credibility. On the otherhand, for alibi to prosper, it must be demonstrated that it was physically impossible for appellant to be present at the place where the crime was committed at the time of commission.[19] As to the penalty imposed, the RTC and the CA were correct in imposing the penalty of reclusion perpetua, instead of death by virtue of R.A. No. 9346, as the rape is qualified by private complainant AAA's minority and appellant's paternity. However, in the award of damages, a modification must be made per People v. Ireneo Jugueta.[20] Where the penalty imposed is Death but reduced to reclusion perpetua because of R.A. No. 9346, the amounts of damages shall be as follows: 1. Civil 2. Moral 3. Exemplary Damages- P100,000.00 IndemnityDamages- P100,000.00 P100,000.00 WHEREFORE, the appeal of Jesus Mayola y Picar is DISMISSED for lack merit and the Decision dated May 21, 2014 of the Court of Appeals, affirming the Decision dated September 11, 2009 of the Regional Trial Court, Branch 55, Alaminos City, Pangasinan in Criminal Case No. 4758-A convicting appellant of the crime of qualified rape defined and penalized under Article 266-A (1) (a) in relation to Article