Decision -7- G.R. No. 227363 Testimonies of child-victims are normally given full weight and credit, since when a girl, particularly if she is a minor, says that she has been raped, she says in effect all that is necessary to show that rape has in fact been committed. When the offended party is of tender age and immature, courts are inclined to give credit to her account of what transpired, considering not only her relative vulnerability but also the shame to which she would be exposed if the matter to which she testified is not true. Youth and immaturity are generally badges of truth and sincerity. A young girl's revelation that she had been raped, coupled with her voluntary submission to medical examination and willingness to undergo public trial where she could be compelled to give out the details of an assault on her dignity, cannot be so easily dismissed as mere concoction. 10 We also reject Tulagan's defense of denial. Being a negative defense, the defense of denial, if not substantiated by clear and convincing evidence, as in the instant case, deserves no weight in law and cannot be given greater evidentiary value than the testimony of credible witnesses, like AAA, who testified on affirmative matters. Since AAA testified in a categorical and consistent manner without any ill motive, her positive identification of Tulagan as the sexual offender must prevail over his defenses of denial and alibi. Here, the courts a quo did not give credence to Tulagan's alibi considering that his house was only 50 meters away from AAA's house, thus, he failed to establish that it was physically impossible for him to be at the locus criminis when the rape incidents took place. "Physical impossibility" refers to distance and the facility of access between the crime scene and the location of the accused when the crime was committed. There must be a demonstration that they were so far away and could not have been physically present at the crime scene and its immediate vicinity when the crime was committed. In this regard, Tulagan failed to prove that there was physical impossibility for him to be at the crime scene when the rape was committed. 11 Thus, his alibi must fail. Further, although the rape incidents in the instant case were not immediately reported to the police, such delay does not affect the truthfulness of the charge in the absence of other circumstances that show the same to be a mere concoction or impelled by some ill motive. 12 For the guidance of the Bench and the Bar, We take this opportunity to reconcile the provisions on Acts of Lasciviousness, Rape and Sexual Assault under the Revised Penal Code (RPC), as amended by Republic Act 10 II 12 Id. at 588-589. (Citations omitted). People v. Barberan, et al., 788 Phil. 103, 113 (2016). See People v. llogon, 788 Phil. 633, 643-644 (2016). (/Y