Notably, both the RTC and the CA found "AAA's" testimony credible and convincing. We, too, see no reason to disbelieve "AAA's" testimony as regards the first rape incident, since it was not shown that the lower courts had overlooked, misunderstood or misappreciated facts or circumstances of weight and substance which, if properly considered would have altered the result of the case.[25] We reject appellant's contention that the presence of other persons during the commission of the first rape incident rendered "AAA's" testimony unbelievable. "It is not impossible or incredible for the members of the victim's family to be in deep slumber and not to be awakened while a sexual assault is being committed."[26] After all, "[i]t is settled that lust is not a respecter of time or place and rape is known to happen [even] in the most unlikely places."[27] We are likewise not persuaded by appellant's claim that the absence of lacerations on "AAA's" hymen negated sexual intercourse. "The rupture of the hymen is not an essential and material fact in rape cases; it only further confirms that the vagina has been penetrated and damaged in the process."[28] Besides, as the CA correctly pointed out, the Initial Medico-Legal Report[29] itself stated that although there was "no evident injury at the time of examination," the "medical evaluation cannot exclude sexual abuse." Acts of lasciviousness not proven beyond reasonable doubt At this juncture, we draw attention to the unique nature of an appeal in a criminal case - the appeal throws the whole case open for review and it is the duty of the appellate court to correct, cite and appreciate errors in the appealed judgment whether they are assigned or unassigned.[30] It is on the basis of such review that we find the present appeal partially meritorious. The Information in Criminal Case No. 07-0284 alleged that appellant had carnal knowledge of "AAA" "on or about the 18th day of March, 2007. For precision and clarity, we quote "AAA's" testimony on the incident that transpired on March 18, 2007 as follows: [COURT:] Q: You mentioned that you did not see the person who took off your pants, you mean you are not sure who he is? A: No, [y]our Honor. Q: You said you did not see him? A: Because I was asleep at that time. I was awakened when my Uncle shouted. Q: You did not wake up because somebody took off your shorts but because of the shouting of your Uncle? A: Yes, [y]our Honor.