In support of his argument, appellant impugns the victims' credibilities by capitalizing on the alleged inconsistencies in their open court testimonies; their failure to shout for help during the alleged incidents; the belated filing of their complaints; and, the medical finding of no evident injury during their examination. Our Ruling The appeal lacks merit. The inconsistency pointed out by appellant as to whether "AAA" was alone or with "BBB" during the alleged incident on the first week of October 2001 refers merely to inconsequential matter that will not affect the determination of whether appellant is innocent of the crime charged or not. "[D]iscrepancies referring only to minor details and not to the central fact of the crime do not affect the veracity or detract from the credibility of a witness' declaration x x x."[14] Respecting the alleged inconsistency on whether appellant's penis touched “AAA's" vagina or not, the same has been clarified by "AAA" herself.[15] "AAA" stated that appellant's penis indeed brushed her vagina. As held in Dizon v. People,[16] "[i]n rape cases, the testimony of [the] complainant must be considered and calibrated in its entirety, and not in its truncated portion or isolated passages thereof. The true meaning of answers to questions propounded to a witness is to be ascertained with due consideration of all the questions and answers given thereto. The whole impression or effect of what has been said or done must be considered, and not individual words or phrases alone. Facts imperfectly stated in answer to a question may be supplied or clarified by one's answer to other questions." The failure of the victims to shout for help or escape during the incidents does not undermine their credibility. It is not also fatal to the prosecution's case. “[N]o standard form of behavior can be anticipated of a rape victim following her defilement, particularly a child who could not be expected to fully comprehend the ways of an adult. People react differently to emotional stress, and rape victims are no different from them."[17] Neither the delay in reporting the incidents to the proper authorities tainted the victims' credibility. For sure, there was no prompt revelation of what befell the victims. But "long silence and delay in reporting the crime of rape have not always been construed as indications of a false accusation."[18] "A rape charge becomes doubtful only when the delay in revealing its commission is unreasonable and unexplained."[19] In the present case, appellant threatened the victims that he would kill them and their families if they would tell anyone of what he did to them. To our mind, this is a reasonable explanation for the delay.