her children saw them in the act of making love. He claims that AAA was lying when she testified in court as evidenced by the fact that her testimony was inconsistent with the testimony of her daughter BBB. According to AAA, appellant was never in her house, except on the night of the incident. Her daughter BBB, on the other hand, testified that appellant went to their house once to ask for a chicken. Finally, appellant puts in issue the failure of the prosecution to present any medical certificate to prove that appellant applied force or violence against AAA. The Court does not agree. Minor inconsistencies do not impair the credibility of the witnesses. To begin with, the inconsistencies in the testimonies of AAA and her daughter as to whether or not that night was the first time appellant went to their house were not sufficient to discredit their testimonies. Jurisprudence holds that "a few discrepancies and inconsistencies in the testimonies of witnesses referring to minor details and not in actuality touching upon the central fact of the crime do not impair the credibility of the witnesses."[19] In fact, such inconsistencies strengthen the credibility of the witness as these discount the possibility of being rehearsed.[20] What is important was that the testimony of AAA on the events that transpired that night was corroborated by the testimony of her daughter BBB. Sweetheart theory does not negate the commission of rape. Appellant's defense that he and AAA were having an illicit affair and that it was AAA who asked him to come to her house that night so that they could have sex also fails to inspire belief from the Court. As aptly pointed out by the RTC: How can a mother of four young children invite a lover to her house so that she could have sex with him in the presence of her children, sleeping or awake, with the likelihood of their seeing her in a tryst with her lover and her husband suddenly arriving and catching them out? Indeed, if they were really and truly lovers who had had sexual trysts for no less than ten times, they could have continued to meet at the same places. Definitely, not in private complainant's home, on Christmas Eve, while the children were with her, awaiting their father's return.[21] Besides, even if true, the existence of such relationship did not negate the commission of rape. Having a relationship with the victim is not a license to have sexual intercourse against her will, and will not exonerate the accused from the criminal charge of rape as "[b]eing sweethearts does not prove consent to the sexual act."[22] A medical certificate is not indispensable in the prosecution for rape.