Q: After he finished what he was doing to you, what did he do next? A: He dressed up and he went to sleep. Q: What about you? A: I just also went to sleep because I can not do anything.[29] In cases of offended parties who are young and immature girls, there is considerable receptivity on the part of the courts to lend credence to their testimonies, considering not only their relative vulnerability, but also the shame and embarrassment to which such a grueling experience as a court trial, where they are called upon to lay bare what perhaps should be shrouded in secrecy, did expose them to.[30] Indeed, no woman, much less a child, would willingly submit herself to the rigors, the humiliation and the stigma attendant upon the prosecution of rape, if she were not motivated by an earnest desire to put the culprit behind bars.[31] Hence, BBB's testimony is entitled to full faith and credence. All the arguments and issues raised in the appellant's brief — which the Public Attorney's Office adopted instead of filing a supplemental appeal brief[32] — have been properly addressed in full and in detail in the appealed CA decision. Appellant's denial is a self-serving defense that cannot be given greater weight than the declaration of a credible witness, like BBB, who testified on affirmative matters[33] and positively identified her father as the perpetrator of the crimes charged. When the trial court's findings have been affirmed by the appellate court, said findings are generally binding upon the Court, unless there is a clear showing that they were reached arbitrarily or it appears from the records that certain facts of weight, substance, or value are overlooked, misapprehended or misappreciated by the lower court which, if properly considered, would alter the result of the case.[34] After a circumspect study of the records, the Court sees no compelling reason to depart from the foregoing principle. As to the penalty for the crime charged in Criminal Case No. RTC 2003-0294, considering that BBB was under 12 years old when appellant threatened her with a knife, forcibly removed her shorts and panty, and inserted his finger into her vagina on April 13, 1998, the imposable penalty for acts of lasciviousness under Art. 336 of the RPC, in relation to Section 5(b), Art. III of R.A. No. 7610, is reclusion temporal in its medium period which ranges from Fourteen (14) years, Eight (8) months and One (1) day to Seventeen (17) years and Four (4) months. Since the perpetrator of the offense is the father of the victim, and such alternative circumstance of relationship was alleged in the Information and proven during trial, the same should be considered as an aggravating circumstance for the purpose of increasing the period of the imposable penalty. There being no mitigating circumstance to offset