pay AAA moral damages of P15,000.00; civil indemnity of P20,000.00 and exemplary damages of P15,000.00. SO ORDERED.[13] Before Us, the People, as represented by the Office of the Solicitor General, manifested that it would not file a Supplemental Brief as the Appellee's Brief filed before the CA adequately addressed the issues and arguments raised in this case.[14] Per the Court's Resolution dated March 16, 2016, Ursua was deemed to have waived the filing of the required brief. It appeared that he did not file a supplemental brief pursuant to the Resolution [15] dated July 27, 2015, within the period fixed therein which expired on October 17, 2015. There is no reason to reverse the judgment of conviction, but a modification of the penalties imposed, the damages awarded, and the nomenclature of the offense committed, is in order. We accord high respect and conclusiveness on the trial court's calibration of the testimonies of the witnesses and the conclusions derived therefrom when no glaring errors, gross misapprehension of facts, and speculative, arbitrary, and unsupported conclusions can be gathered from such findings. Indeed, trial courts are in a better position to decide the question of credibility, having heard the witnesses themselves and observed their deportment and manner of testifying during trial, and the rule finds an even more stringent application where the trial court's findings are sustained by the CA.[16] However, the assailed CA decision is modified as to the penalty imposed and the damages awarded in Criminal Cases No. 134832-H and 134833-H. With respect to the two (2) counts of qualified rape by sexual intercourse, Ursua is sentenced to suffer the penalty of two (2) counts of reclusion perpetua without eligibility for parole,[17] and is ordered to pay AAA the amounts of P100,000.00 as civil indemnity, P100,000.00 as moral damages and P100,000.00 as exemplary damages for each count, in line with current jurisprudence. [18] As to the penalty for qualified rape under paragraph 1, Article 266-A of the RPC, Article 266-B (1) of the RPC provides that the death penalty shall be imposed if the victim is under eighteen (18) years of age and the offender is the parent. Applying R.A. No. 9346,[19] the CA correctly imposed the penalty of reclusion perpetua, but it should be specified that it is without eligibility for parole. This is pursuant to A.M. No. 15-08-02-SC which states that "[w]hen circumstances are present warranting the imposition of the death penalty, but this penalty is not imposed because of R.A. No. 9346, the qualification 'without eligibility for parole' shall be used to qualify reclusion perpetua in order to emphasize that the accused should have been sentenced to suffer the death penalty had it not been for R.A. No. 9346." Meanwhile, the damages awarded by the RTC, as affirmed by the CA, should be modified in view of People v. Jugueta[20] where it was held that in cases of qualified rape where the imposable penalty is death but the same is reduced to reclusion perpetua because of R.A. No. 9346, the amounts of civil indemnity, moral damages and exemplary damages shall be in the amount of P100,000.00 each. [21] As regards Criminal Case No. 134834-H, the CA decision is likewise modified as to the nomenclature of the offense, the penalty imposed and the damages awarded. Since AAA merely testified that her father touched her breasts and vagina, and thereafter placed himself on top of her ("pumatong siya"), and there was no specific mention of a penetration of Ursua's penis or fingers into AAA' vagina, the CA correctly ruled that Ursua cannot be held liable for rape by sexual intercourse as charged in the Information in Criminal Case No. 134834-H. Be that as it may, Ursua can still be convicted of sexual abuse under Section 5(b), Article III of R.A. No. 7610[22] pursuant to the variance doctrine under Sections 4 and 5, Rule 120[23] of the Rules of Court, because the same offense was proved during trial and is necessarily included in acts of lasciviousness under Article 336 of the RPC which, under settled jurisprudence,[24] is necessarily included in the crime of rape.[25] Contrary to the CA's ruling that Ursua is, at the most, liable for one (1) count of acts of lasciviousness under Article 336 of the RPC, in relation to Section 5(b), Article III of R.A. No. 7610 due to the prosecution's failure to prove the fact of carnal knowledge, We rule that the proper nomenclature of the offense is sexual abuse under Section 5(b), Article III of R.A. No. 7610. This is consistent with the CA's discussion on the prosecution's failure to prove the fact of carnal knowledge in Criminal Case No. 134834-H: The elements of sexual abuse under Section 5(b), Article III of Republic Act No. 7610 are as follows: 1. The accused commit the act of sexual intercourse or lascivious conduct. 2. The said act is performed with a child exploited in prostitution or subjected to sexual abuse. 3. The child, whether male or female, is below 18 years of age. First, accused-appellant's touching of AAA's breasts and vagina with lewd designs constitute lascivious conduct defined in Section 2(h) of the Implementing Rules and Regulations of Republic Act No. 7610, to wit: