The assault upon BBB was repeated on 18 April 2009 at about five o'clock in the morning. At that time, BBB and her two female siblings had to sleep in accusedappellant's house because their mother was at the hospital attending to AAA. While in bed, BBB was awakened by a finger being inserted into her vagina. When she opened her eyes, BBB saw accused-appellant. Sensing that BBB was already awake, accused-appellant left.[10] About a month earlier or on 15 March 2009, AAA and her siblings stayed with accused-appellant and their maternal grandmother because their parents had to attend the wake of a deceased relative. At around four o'clock in the morning, AAA was awakened by somebody, whom she identified to be accused-appellant because of his rough hand and odor, fiddling her nipple. The incident lasted for about two minutes. Accused-appellant stopped when he realized that AAA's siblings were already awake.[11] Thereafter, AAA and her siblings rose from bed and prepared breakfast. AAA did not tell anyone about the incident out of fear. It was only when BBB revealed the sexual acts committed against her by accused-appellant that AAA also mustered the courage to speak out.[12] During the presentation of the prosecution's evidence, however, an Affidavit of Desistance,[13] dated 15 May 2012, was executed by AAA, BBB, and CCC. Version of the Defense The defense presented the maternal grandmother of AAA and BBB as its sole witness. She testified that accused-appellant became her common-law partner in February 2010, about a year after the death of her husband. Her family resented her relationship with accused-appellant because she was no longer able to support them and their disagreement resulted in the filing of the rape cases against accused-appellant.[14] The RTC Ruling In its decision, dated 30 January 2013, the RTC acquitted accused appellant for violation of Section 5 (b) of R.A. No. 7610 for failure of the prosecution to sufficiently establish the identity of the perpetrator. It observed that AAA admitted that she was not able to see the face of the person who assaulted her but that she concluded that said person was accused-appellant on the basis of the assailant's rough hand and odor. The RTC reasoned that AAA's mere general statement that the person who touched her breasts had the same rough hand and odor as the accused appellant was not conclusive proof of the latter's identity as the culprit