In defense, accused-appellant denied the charges and claimed that AAA's family were angry at him when he left their house, leaving no one to attend to their errands. He asserted that he left them because he could no longer understand what they were asking him to do for them.[20] The RTC Ruling In a Joint Decision[21] dated February 6, 2013, the RTC convicted accused-appellant of: (a) Rape in FC Crim. Case No. 2008-426, sentencing him to suffer the penalty of reclusion perpetua and to pay AAA the amounts of P50,000.00 as civil indemnity, P50,000.00 as moral damages, and P30,000.00 as exemplary damages; and (b) Unjust Vexation in FC Crim. Case No. 2008-427, sentencing him to suffer the penalty of imprisonment for a period of 30 days of arresto menor and to pay a fine of P200.00 with accessory penalties.[22] In finding accused-appellant guilty of Rape in FC Criminal Case No. 2008-426, the RTC found that although the allegations in the Information are sufficient to make out a case for child abuse, it also constitutes Statutory Rape under Article 266-A of the Revised Penal Code (RPC), as amended. Relative thereto, it found that AAA's narration of her defloration in the hands of accused-appellant more than sufficiently established the offense, as well as the identity of the offender. Despite her tender age, she was straightforward, clear, categorical, and positive in her testimony, indicating that she was telling the truth. Moreover, her account of the incident was supported by the medical findings of Dr. Taleon, who testified that there were healed lacerations in AAA's genitalia at the 3, 8, and 10 o'clock positions.[23] As regards FC Criminal Case No. 2008-427, the RTC found that the prosecution has established that on the evening of April 16, 2008, when AAA went to their kitchen, she encountered accused-appellant who, without warning, "just squeezed her vagina."[24] The RTC opined, however, that the prosecution failed to establish the element of lasciviousness or lewdness as would justify accused-appellant's conviction for the crime of Acts of Lasciviousness. The overt act of accusedappellant of squeezing AAA's vagina did not show that he intended to gratify his sexual desires nor was it demonstrative of carnal lust. Nonetheless, AAA was clearly annoyed by the act; perforce, the RTC found accused-appellant guilty of Unjust Vexation, defined and penalized under Article 287[25] of the RPC.[26] Conversely, the RTC brushed aside the defense proffered by accused appellant, which it found insufficient to debunk the positive evidence of the prosecution.[27] Dissatisfied, accused-appellant appealed his conviction.[28] The CA Ruling