perpetua, and to pay "AAA" P50,000.00 as civil indemnity, P50,000.00 as moral damages and P30,000.00 as exemplary damages. 2. GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of rape as defined and penalized under Article 266-A, Par. 1 of the Revised Penal Code in FC-Criminal Case No. 2006-141 and is hereby sentenced to suffer imprisonment of reclusion perpetua, and to pay "AAA" P50,000.00 as civil indemnity, P50,000.000 as moral damages and P30,000.00 as exemplary damages. SO ORDERED.[36] (Emphasis in the original) Udang appealed before the Court of Appeals, maintaining that he did not rape AAA. He also claimed that the judge who penned the Decision, Judge Richard D. Mordeno (Judge Mordeno), was not the judge who personally heard the witnesses testify and was not able to observe their demeanor during trial. [37] Udang argued that Judge Mordeno, therefore, was not in the position to rule on the credibility of AAA, given her "unbelievable story" [38] of rape. Udang emphasized that AAA's testimony was not credible for if she was allegedly raped in his house in September 2002, she would not have gone to the same house to have drinks with her supposed rapist a year after, in December 2003, on the risk of being raped again.[39] He highlighted AAA's ill motive against him for having caused her detention in the Cagayan de Oro City Jail for sniffing rugby in his house.[40] Finally, he emphasized that Dr. Revelo's testimony established that the lacerations found in AAA's genitalia could have been caused by trauma other than rape. [41] In its ruling, the Court of Appeals found that although Judge Mordeno was not the one who conducted trial, Udang's guilt was nonetheless proven beyond reasonable doubt based on the records of the case and AAA's "categorical, convincing and consistent" testimony. [42] That AAA returned to Udang's house a year after she was allegedly raped was, for the Court of Appeals, not as bizarre as Udang would make it appear. The Court of Appeals reasoned that "there is no standard form of behavior that can be expected of rape victims after they have been defiled because people react differently to emotional stress."[43] Finally, the Court of Appeals rejected Udang's claim that AAA charged him with rape as vengeance for her arrest for sniffing rugby. It explained that "ill motives become inconsequential if there is an affirmative and credible declaration from the rape victim which clearly established the liability of the accused." [44] Thus, the Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court Decision in toto and dismissed Udang's appeal in its October 9, 2013 Decision,[45] the dispositive portion of which read: WHEREFORE, premises considered, the appeal is DISMISSED. The March 12, 2012 Joint Decision of the Regional Trial Court, 10th Judicial Region, Branch 22 of Cagayan de Oro City in FC Criminal Case Nos. 2006-140 and 2006141 is hereby AFFIRMED in toto. SO ORDERED.[46] (Emphasis in the original) The case was brought on appeal before this Court through a Notice of Appeal filed on October 23, 2013. [47] In its February 26, 2014 Resolution,[48] this Court directed the parties to file their respective supplemental briefs. In their respective manifestations, the Office of the Solicitor General,[49] representing the People of the Philippines, and accused-appellant Udang[50] requested this Court to treat their appeal briefs filed before the Court of Appeals as their appeal briefs before this Court. This Court noted the parties' respective manifestations in its July 7, 2014 Resolution[51] and the case was considered submitted for decision. Udang denies ever raping AAA and maintains his innocence, just as he did before the Court of Appeals. For him, AAA is not a credible witness and her story of rape is unbelievable. He claims that AAA should not have returned to his house a year after the alleged first incident to have drinks with him and his son, Bienvinido, Jr., had he really raped her. He also emphasizes how the rape charges were made only after he caused AAA's arrest for sniffing rugby in his house. He points out how two (2) of AAA's fellow inmates in the Cagayan de Oro City Jail, Gandawali and Orcales, even attested to his innocence based on AAA's confession that he did not rape her. Thus, the accused prays for his acquittal. In its Brief for the Appellee,[52] the Office of the Solicitor General argues that Udang was correctly convicted of two (2) counts of rape punished under Article 266-A(1) of the Revised Penal Code. It claims that "testimonies of child-victims of rape are to be given full weight and credence" [53] because "a girl of tender years,"[54] like AAA at the time of the reported incidents, "is unlikely to impute to any man a crime so serious as rape, if what she claims is not true."[55] It adds that "when a woman, more so when she is a minor, says she has been raped, she says in effect all that is required to prove the ravishment."[56] The principal issue for this Court's resolution is whether or not accused-appellant, Bienvinido Udang, Sr. y Sevilla, was correctly convicted of rape punished under the first paragraph of Article 266-A of the Revised Penal Code. The appeal is affirmed with modification. Based on the Informations, Udang was charged with two (2) counts of sexual abuse punished under Section 5(b) of Republic Act No. 7610. Hence, he could only be convicted of sexual abuse under the Informations filed in this case and not for rape under the Revised Penal Code. Furthermore, upon examination of the evidence presented, this Court finds Udang guilty of two (2) counts of sexual abuse. Thus, the penalty erroneously imposed on him—reclusion perpetua for each count of rape—should be reduced accordingly. I