Decision - 15 - G.R. No. 234841 misapprehended or misappreciated by the lower court which, if properly considered, would alter the result of the case. After a circumspect study of the records, the Court sees no compelling reason to depart from the foregoing principle." 39 As for the penalty for the crime charged herein, considering that AAA was more than twelve (12) years old, but less than eighteen (18) years old when Manuel threatened to kill her should she tell anyone of his lascivious advances, forcibly placed his hand inside her shorts and underwear, and inserted his finger into her vagina, moving it in and out for about five (5) minutes, the imposable penalty is reclusion temporal, in its medium period, to reclusion perpetua. 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 the said alternative aggravating circumstance, the penalty provided shall be imposed in its maximum period, i.e., reclusion perpetua. This is also in consonance with Section 31(c),40 Article XII ofR.A. No. 7610 which expressly provides that the penalty shall be imposed in its maximum period when the perpetrator is, inter alia, the parent of the victim. Moreover, Manuel should be ordered to pay the victim, AAA, civil indemnity, moral damages and exemplary damages in the amount of P75,000.00 each, pursuant to People v. Jugueta 41 and People v. Salvador Tulagan, 42 with interest at the rate of six percent (6%) per annum from the date of finality of judgment until fully paid, and a fine in the amount of P15,000.00, pursuant to Section 3 l(f), 43 Article XII ofR.A. No. 7610. WHEREFORE, premises considered, the instant petition is DENIED. The assailed Decision dated May 19, 2017 and Resolution dated September 27, 2017 of the Court of Appeals are AFFIRMED with MODIFICATION. Manuel Barallas Ramilo is guilty of Lascivious Conduct under Section 5(b), Article III of Republic Act No. 7610, and is sentenced to suffer the penalty of reclusion perpetua and to pay a fine of Pl 5,000.00. He is further ordered to pay the victim, AAA, civil indemnity, moral damages and exemplary damages, each in the amount of P75,000.00. 39 People v. Raul Macapagal, supra note 31; citation omitted. Sec. 31. Common Penal Provisions. xxxx (c) The penalty provided herein shall be imposed in its maximum period when the perpetrator is an ascendant, parent, guardian, stepparent or collateral relative within the second degree of consanguinity or affinity, or a manager or owner of an establishment which has no license to operate or its license has expired or has been revoked. 41 783 Phil. 806 (2016). 42 Supra note 23. 43 Sec. 31. Common Penal Provisions. xxxx (f) A fine to be determined by the court shall be imposed and administered as a cash fund by t h / Department of Social Welfare and Development and disbursed for the rehabilitation of each child victim, or any immediate member of his family if the latter is the perpetrator of the offense. 40