trial a mockery and place the investigation at the mercy of unscrupulous witnesses. Because affidavits of retraction can easily be secured from poor and ignorant witnesses, usually for monetary consideration, the Court has invariably regarded such affidavits as exceedingly unreliable.[23] [emphasis omitted.] In addition, when asked by the court a quo whether her affidavit of desistance meant that she was not raped by accused-appellant, BBB simply did not answer.[24] Neither did she give any exculpatory fact that would raise doubts about the rape. BBB's testimony should be given full weight and credence. It must be noted that accused-appellant's only defense is the alleged resentment of CCC towards her mother's relationship with him. Such argument is flimsy and superficial. In People v. Basmayor,[25] the Court ruled: This Court has held time and again that testimonies of rape victims who are young and immature deserve full credence, considering that no young woman, especially of tender age, would concoct a story of defloration, allow an examination of her private parts, and thereafter pervert herself by being the subject of a public trial, if she was not motivated solely by the desire to obtain justice for the wrong committed against her. Youth and immaturity are generally badges of truth. It is highly improbable that a girl of tender years, one not yet exposed to the ways of the world, would impute to any man a crime so serious as rape if what she claims is not true. [citations omitted][26] In this case, BBB was able to withstand the rigors of direct examination and crossexamination. Not once did she falter in narrating the dastardly act committed against her and identifying accused-appellant as the perpetrator. Moreover, no decent mother would use her daughter as an instrument of revenge, especially if it will subject her child to embarrassment and lifelong stigma.[27] A disagreement among family members, even if true, does not justify dragging a young girl's honor to merciless public scrutiny that a rape trial brings in its wake.[28] Finally, the testimony of BBB was also corroborated by the Medico-Legal Report[29] which stated that the physical findings suggested blunt or penetrating trauma. "When a rape victim's testimony on the manner she was defiled is straightforward and candid, and is corroborated by the medical findings of the examining physician as in this case, the same is sufficient to support a conviction for rape."[30] Accused-appellant is guilty of statutory rape.