Decision 8 G.R. No. 235662 reactions does not impair the credibility of a rape victim. Additionally, failure to physically resist the attack does not detract from the established fact that a reprehensible act was done to a child-woman by her own biological father. Lastly, failure to shout or offer tenuous resistance does not make voluntary the victim's submission to the criminal acts of the accused. 24 Indeed, just because AAA or BBB did not offer tenacious resistance nor even shout whenever their father sexually ravished them did not make them less credible as witnesses. Third. It is not true that AAA and BBB took three (3) years before they reported the sex crimes appellant perpetrated on them. As aptly observed by the trial court, AAA confided in their mother their sexual ravishment in appellant's hands but their mother did not believe her. They were young and helpless victims of their own father's bestiality. He treated them like sex slaves in never ending horrendous ways. The person they thought would protect them did not even care to believe them. Where else would they go? Who else could help them? They were obviously driven into helplessness and cowed silence. • But things did change. Young girls also grow up. So did AAA and BBB. After going through innumerable counts of sexual violence through all the three (3) traumatic years of their lives, the grown-up girls can take no more. AAA left their home and went to her aunt who rescued her. Then she was vindicated; so was her sister, BBB. On this score, People v. Lantano25 instructs: To begin with, the prosecution is under no burden to establish acceptable reasons or satisfactory explanation for the delay in reporting a rape. Settled is the rule that delay or hesitation in reporting a case of rape due to threats of the assailant is justified and must not be taken against the victim. Neither does such delay indicate deceit or a fabricated insinuation inasmuch as it is common that a rape victim prefers silence because of fear of her aggressor and the lack of courage to face the public stigma stemming from the abuse. With particular regard to incestuous rapes, since the perpetrator in these cases is a parent of the victim, he is able to pervert whatever moral ascendancy and influence he has over the victim in order to intimidate the latter. Hence, even in the absence of verbal threats against the victim's life, the parent molester's moral ascendancy and influence take the place of intimidation, especially so when they are living under the same roof. So must it be. Appellant is guilty of two (2) counts of qualified rape in 24 25 See People v. Palanay, 805 Phil. 116, 124 (2017). 566 Phil. 628, 638-639 (2008). ~