positive testimony of "AAA." Moreover, the distance alone from Meycauayan, Bulacan to Nueva Ecija does not conclusively prove that it was physically impossible for Padlan to go to Nueva Ecija and still return to Bulacan to commit the crime of rape. "Physical impossibility refers not only to the geographical distance between the place where the accused was and the place where the crime was committed when the crime transpired, but more importantly, the facility of access between the two places."[22] Further, Padlan testified that on September 27-28, 2005, he was resting inside the house of "AAA's" family after selling vegetables at the public market. Instead of removing himself from the locus criminis, his testimony placed him squarely at the very scene of the crime or its immediate vicinity. Thus, in the face of "AAA's" positive identification of Padlan as her rapist, we reject Padlan's defense of alibi. The Court, however, disagrees with the RTC and the CA with regard to the imposition of penalty for the crime of Acts of Lasciviousness in Criminal Case No. 2757-M-2005. The RTC, as affirmed by the CA, imposed the penalty of imprisonment of five (5) months and eleven (11) days of arresto mayor as minimum and two (2) years, four (4) months, and one (1) day of prision correccional as maximum pursuant to the provisions of Art. 336 of the RPC. The RTC did not apply the penalty prescribed by Sec. 5(b), Art. III of RA 7610 since according to the RTC, "the informations did not particularly allege what particular Section of R.A. 7610 ha[d] been violated by the accused."[23] We disagree with the RTC. A plain reading of the accusatory portion of the Information in Criminal Case No. 2757-M-2005 reads: INFORMATION The undersigned Asst. Provincial Prosecutor accuses Amante Padlan y Leones @ Butog of the crime of Acts of Lasciviousness penalized under the provisions of Art. 336 of the Revised Penal Code in relation to R.A. 7610, Sec. 5 (b), committed as follows: That on or about the 28th day of September, 2005, in the municipality of Meycauayan, province of Bulacan, Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named accused, by means of force and intimidation, did then and there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously, with lewd designs, commit acts of lasciviousness upon the person of AAA, a nine (9) year old minor, by touching her vagina and against her will, thereby badly affecting the psychological and emotional well being of said AAA. Contrary to law.[24] (Emphasis supplied)