strengthen the credibility of her testimony.[23] EEE's claim that the element of force, threat or intimidation is wanting in his case has no merit. x x x A person accused of a serious crime such as rape will tend to escape liability by shifting the blame on the victim for failing to manifest resistance to sexual abuse. However, this Court has recognized the feet that no clear-cut behavior can be expected of a person being raped or has been raped. It is a settled rule that failure of the victim to shout or seek help does not negate rape. Even lack of resistance will not imply that the victim has consented to the sexual act, especially when that person was intimidated into submission by the accused. In cases where the rape is committed by a relative such as a father, stepfather, uncle, or commonlaw spouse, moral influence or ascendancy takes the place of violence.[24] For the defense of alibi to prosper, the accused must prove (a) that he was present at another place at the time of the perpetration of the crime, and (b) that it was physically impossible for him to be at the scene of the crime during its commission.[25] "Physical impossibility" means the distance and the facility of access between the situs of the crime and the location of the accused when the crime was committed; it must be demonstrated that the accused was so far away and could not have been physically present at the crime scene and its immediate vicinity upon its commission.[26] If there is the least possibility of his presence at the locus criminis, the defense of alibi will not prosper.[27] In an effort to exculpate EEE, the defense professed that he and BBB, together with AAA, no longer lived together in Biso since April 2006 and that on the date and time of the alleged rape he was working in a ricefield in Gintuangan together with GGG and FFF. Both the RTC and the CA found that these excuses failed to prove the physical impossibility of his being at the scene of the crime at the approximate time of its commission. As a rule, factual findings of the trial court and the conclusions based on these factual findings are to be given the highest respect.[28] As well, factual findings of the appellate court generally are conclusive, and carry even more weight when said court affirms the findings of the trial court, absent any showing that the findings are totally devoid of support in the records, or that they are so glaringly erroneous as to constitute grave abuse of discretion.[29] Lastly, with respect to the penalty imposed, the courts below were correct in imposing the penalty of reclusion perpetua, instead of death by virtue of Republic Act No. 9346, as the rape is qualified by AAA's minority and her relationship to EEE. On the award of damages, consistent with People v. Jugueta,[30] the amounts of damages shall be P100,000.00 as civil indemnity, P100,000.00 as moral damages, and P100,000.00 as exemplary damages. Further, six percent (6%) interest per annum is imposed on all the amounts awarded reckoned from the date of finality of