When arraigned with the assistance of counsel, petitioner entered a plea of "not guilty."[23] During trial, he denied the charges against him and claimed that when he was a teacher and the CAT Commandant in DCNHS, AAA never became his student and that he did not meet her as an applicant to become a CAT officer.[24] He averred that CAT initiation rites were conducted during the school year and inside the school premises.[25] Moreover, it was the senior CAT officers who recruited the new ones, and that AAA did not apply to become a CAT officer in 2007.[26] He asserted that no initiation rites were conducted in April 2007 nor did he invite AAA to his house for any such initiation.[27] On the contrary, he claimed to be in his house in Malonoy, Dao, Capiz in April 2007, for a summer vacation.[28] The RTC Ruling In a Decision[29] dated October 5, 2010, the RTC convicted petitioner of acts of lasciviousness and sentenced him to suffer the penalty of imprisonment for a period of three (3) months and one (1) day of arresto mayor medium, as minimum, to two (2) years and five (5) months of prision correccional medium, as maximum, and to pay AAA the amount of P25,000.00 as moral and exemplary damages.[30] In so ruling, the RTC gave more credence to the clear and straightforward testimony of AAA on how petitioner sexually abused her. Citing the well-settled rule that no girl would concoct a story of sexual assault nor subject herself and her family to trauma and embarrassment unless she was speaking the truth, the RTC found no evidence that AAA and her family fabricated the story in order to humiliate petitioner, who was then the CAT Commandant of DCNHS.[31] Conversely, the RTC rejected petitioner's defense of denial, finding the same insufficient to absolve him of criminal liability.[32] Aggrieved, petitioner appealed[33] to the CA. The CA Ruling In a Decision[34] dated June 21, 2013, the CA affirmed petitioner's conviction for acts of lasciviousness, with modification as to damages. The CA found that AAA's testimony clearly and categorically established petitioner's identity as the person who molested her.[35] As such, there being no showing that AAA was actuated by improper motive, the presumption is that she was not so actuated and her testimony is entitled to full faith and credence.[36] Moreover, petitioner failed to show that it was physically impossible for him to be at the locus criminis or its immediate vicinity at the time of the commission of the crime. Although he testified that he and his wife were at their residence in Malonoy, Dao, Capiz for a summer vacation, it was not impossible for him to be at Dumalag, Capiz at the time of the incident, the two places being proximate to each other.[37]