anybody, otherwise, he would evict her family and he would kill her. Evidently, accused-appellant used threats and intimidation against AAA, which caused her to suffer silently in fear until she finally disclosed her ordeal to her teacher. Further, AAA was only eleven (11) years old at the time of the rape incident, as evidenced by her birth certificate. The Court does not give credence to accused-appellant's argument that AAA's testimony was incredible because there were inconsistent statements regarding the frequency of the abuses. Inconsistencies in the testimony of the victim do not necessarily render such testimony incredible. In fact, minor inconsistencies strengthen the credibility of the witness and the testimony, because of a showing that such charges are not fabricated. What is decisive in a charge of rape is the complainant's positive identification of the accused as the malefactor.15 Testimonies of rape victims who are young and of tender age are credible. The revelation of an innocent child whose chastity was abused deserves full credence.16 It is a well-settled rule that factual findings of the trial court, especially on the credibility of the rape victim, are accorded great weight and respect and will not be disturbed on appeal.17 Moreover, the medico-legal report corroborated the testimony of AAA. It showed the presence of deep-healed lacerations at the 3, 6 and 9 o'clock positions in AAA's hymen, showing blunt penetrating trauma. Time and again, the Court held that the slightest penetration of the labia of the female victim's genitalia consummates the crime of rape.18 Nevertheless, the crime committed by accused-appellant must be qualified under Article 266-B of the RPC. It was indicated in the Informations that accused-appellant was the paternal uncle of AAA. Also, during trial, AAA positively identified accused-appellant as her uncle and she established that it was her uncle who raped her. There is qualified rape when the victim is below 18 years of age and the offender is an ascendant or relative by consanguinity or affinity within the third civil degree. In this case, accusedappellant, the paternal uncle of AAA, was a relative by consanguinity within the third civil degree. Hence, the crime of qualified rape was committed by accused-appellant. Acts of Lasciviousness Aside from the qualified rape committed by accused-appellant, AAA testified positively that he also sexually molested her. She stated that on September 11, 2011, at his house, around 10:00 o'clock in the evening, the accused-appellant touched and caressed her genitals. This was confirmed by his live-in-partner when she reported the incident to BBB. Section 5 Article III of R.A. No. 7610 provides that when the victim is under 12 years of age, the perpetrators shall be prosecuted under the RPC, but the penalty shall be that provided in R.A. No. 7610.19 Lascivious conduct is defined as "[t]he intentional touching, either directly or through clothing, of the genitalia, anus, groin, breast, inner thigh, or buttocks, or the introduction of any object into the genitalia, anus or mouth of any person, whether of the same or opposite sex, with an intent to abuse, humiliate,